English Heritage

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare my interest as a former chairman of English Heritage.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what was their reason for ordering the further review of the work of English Heritage soon after the last review.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we have not ordered a further review of English Heritage. English Heritage is making good progress with implementing the recommendations of the quinquennial review, completed in May 2002. Earlier this year, Ministers looked at options for a possible change in the relationship between English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund. They decided that there was no merit in a merger, but asked the bodies to explore the scope for closer working in the context of the Government's efficiency programme.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, can I take it therefore that there are no plans for mergers with any other body at this time?

Lord Davies of Oldham: Indeed, my Lords.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, English Heritage does an excellent job in preserving our historic environment. It also carries out a lot of work in research, regeneration, education and employment. Can the Minister assure me that, in the forthcoming financial settlement, funding for English Heritage will not be cut?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I cannot forecast the outcome of the spending provision, which is a number of weeks away. However, I want to assure noble Lords that there has been no cost-cutting exercise as regards English Heritage. That body has been playing its part within the Government's efficiency programme to achieve 2.5 per cent savings, but the intention behind those savings is that they should be put into the front-line services which English Heritage provides.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, will the Minister go a little further than the purely economic arguments here? One quite authoritative press commentator said recently—by way of a joke, I suppose; or maybe not—that the Government were not really interested in our built heritage because, for them, history had started only in 1997. Is there any truth in that? While I do not expect the Minister to say that there is, is it relevant to the noble Lord's Question?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not want to underestimate the historic significance of the year 1997. Of course the Government value our historic heritage and we all recognise that it is greatly valued by tourists of our country. Moreover, we have been hugely successful in increasing access to English Heritage sites by families and young people who, in the past, were not accustomed to visiting such places. That is a reflection of both the education and publicity programmes of English Heritage which are winning support and commendation.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, if the Minister is able to reassure us that he does not envisage any material cuts in the funding for English Heritage, can he assure me that the Government are ignoring the summary of conclusions and recommendations for cost savings as a result of the review of the structure of government support for the historic environment undertaken by the consultants Pannell, Kerr Forster?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I have indicated that English Heritage, in common with all other agencies for which the Government have ultimate responsibility, is playing its part in achieving the 2.5 per cent efficiency saving. However, I wanted to emphasise that that efficiency saving can be achieved without a decline in services. It is intended that the resources so saved should be put into front-line services. In that respect, I can assure the noble Baroness that the intention behind the efficiency drive is not to cut services.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, following on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that English Heritage is meant to protect our heritage, the efficiency cuts of 2.5 per cent referred to by the noble Lord mean that English Heritage will have no spare funding for grants in areas such as archaeology. If that funding dries up and no other funding is available, how can the Minister say that the money is being put into front-line services? The efficiency saving means that in fact there will be a cut in the heritage services for this country.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it has been recognised that greater efficiency is required on the part of English Heritage in a number of areas. As I have said, this is not a unique situation. All government departments are following the requirement. However, where English Heritage is able to effect such efficiencies—I have not seen a consultants' report which indicates that it cannot do so and the body itself is buoyant about it—there is no reason to suppose that, in achieving those efficiencies, front-line services are being cut; far from it.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, while my noble friend is praising English Heritage, will he also commend it for the excellent, imaginative and sensitive manner in which it is increasing access for people with disabilities to many of the properties for which it has responsibility?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that comment. It is one of the more obvious challenges faced by English Heritage. Many of the sites for which it has responsibility present very real difficulties in terms of access. As my noble friend indicated, English Heritage has made considerable progress in this respect.

The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, there seems to be some confusion among heritage bodies about whether or not a review is taking place. If such a review is taking place and includes the Churches Conservation Trust, can the Minister ensure that the Church Commissioners, who are joint paymasters of that trust, are fully consulted?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am happy to give that assurance. I emphasise that the Question referred to whether a review similar to the quinquennial review of 2002 was taking place. I sought to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, that that was not the case. It is part of an overall government review appertaining to all government departments. Therefore there is no particular need for anxiety. That does not alter the fact that, in achieving greater efficiency, English Heritage will have to consult widely. I can assure the right reverend Prelate that it will do as he suggested.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, at the annual general meeting of the Historic Houses Association yesterday, relations between that body and the Government were clearly cordial. In a very moderate speech the president alluded to the disappointment that it felt about the fall in grants. Has the Minister any comment to make on that?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is the case that the grant for English Heritage has been limited over the past couple of years in comparison with a number of other areas for which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible. This is because areas such as project-based funding for sport and free access to museums have needed extra resources directed towards them. I cannot give the noble Lord a forecast of what the immediate spending arrangements will be because they are still to be decided. Ministers have not decided these as yet. However, I can assure the House that we recognise the valuable role played by English Heritage in a whole range of areas, including the one to which the noble Lord referred. We intend to ensure that funds are provided adequately.

Palace of Westminster: Security

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	Whether he will issue instructions to security staff that they require all Members and officials of the House to wear their passes upon entering and whilst in the building.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, security staff are already instructed to advise pass holders to display their passes. The recent security review has underlined that the wearing of passes is fundamental to any security system. I therefore strongly encourage all Members and staff to wear their passes when on the parliamentary estate.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for that reply. Does he agree that it is unfair on our staff if Members of another place, without wearing any kind of identification, breeze up to your Lordships' House and, when challenged, offer the comment—perhaps the most unhelpful comment in the English language—"Don't you know who I am?"? As there can hardly be any security conscious building in the world these days which does not require the wearing of identification badges of some kind or another, should not everyone be doing all they can to help our doorkeepers and attendants in the difficult and important job that they do so well on our behalf?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord on the latter part of the question; he is absolutely right. As to the first part of the question, I also agree that "Don't you know who I am?" is a most unhelpful remark to make. We all know who we are—I hope—but a large number of junior and young security staff who have not been here very long really cannot be expected to know who all 700 Members of your Lordships' House are. I am afraid that there have been incidents where Members of both Houses have done exactly what the noble Lord said and have been rude and aggressive to members of security staff. I hope that that will cease.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, on looking round the House today, does the Chairman of Committees agree that very few noble Lords are wearing their passes? I quite agree with the noble Lord that it is not fair. I have been here a mere 31 years but I still wear my pass. I do not expect many of the security staff have been here that long.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not going to carry out a spot check on all those who are wearing their passes and all those who are not. As I said in my original Answer, I would very much encourage, as would members of the Front Benches and the usual channels, all Members to wear their passes for precisely the reason given by the noble Baroness.

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, while applauding wholeheartedly the purpose behind the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester—and, I hope, following the practice myself—will the noble Lord the Lord Chairman bear in mind that there has always been recognised one exception to this practice: that is, that noble Lords and our Clerks at the Table are not required to wear their passes while in the Chamber? Will he further bear in mind that when I occupied the position which he now so splendidly graces, I was very gently, delicately and diplomatically reprimanded by our former Clerk of the Parliaments, Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth, for wearing my pass while on the Woolsack, which he considered to be "wholly unseemly"?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, he is no longer here and I always wear my pass on the Woolsack.

Lord Lyell: My Lords, I may have been in an unseemly position for 12 years on the Woolsack. I have worn my pass every day since February 1991, when the IRA mortared Downing Street, and Black Rod asked every one of us to wear a pass, since the number of police was doubled, and it was assumed that every other policeman would not know me.
	In these times of high security, at least three times in the past three months, I have been told by young—and some older—security forces from outside London that they do not recognise the pass. One of them said to me, "Sonny, go and get your father", which I thought was interesting. Others, even though they may be colour blind, admit us down at the other end. Will the noble Lord take it on board that in periods of high security there may be those who do not even recognise our passes or other passes from within the Palace?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think that that problem arises mainly when there is particularly high security, such as when a demonstration is taking place outside the building, and policemen who are not part of the normal complement are around and about the place. There was an incident not so long ago when, regrettably, policemen were stopping Members of your Lordships' House crossing from Old Palace Yard to here. That was very quickly put right.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, is it the experience of the noble Lord the Lord Chairman that rudeness and arrogance are sometimes prompted by guilt?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: I would not know, my Lords.

Bowman System

Lord Burnham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether it is intended that the Ministry of Defence Major Projects Report will include a full updating on the Bowman project as on 31 March 2004 and details of subsequent progress.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the Ministry of Defence Major Projects Report 2004 was submitted to Parliament on 1 November 2004 and included a full update on the Bowman project as at 31 March 2004. Details of progress subsequent to 31 March were not included due to the report period end date. A further progress report on the Bowman project will be forthcoming in the Major Projects Report 2005.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, am I not right in thinking that the Bowman did not come into service until March 2004, which is the moment the report was completed? It is widely said that while the Bowman works well, it is extremely difficult to carry about and to use, and its mobility is virtually non-existent. Will the noble Lord comment on that?

Lord Bach: My Lords, Bowman came into service on 26 March 2004. In fact, it reached its initial operating capability nine months earlier than approved. There have been some difficulties, as the noble Lord rightly points out, concerning platform weight. That is the kind of problem one expects with new projects of this kind, particularly important projects of this kind. Safety is of prime importance, and restrictions are placed on the use of vehicles until potential safety issues have been resolved. I can tell the noble Lord and the House that work is ongoing with platform IPTs and vehicle design authorities to resolve the issues. We are confident that they will be resolved.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister mentioned platform weight. Is it not the case that the system is so heavy that it could destabilise a Land Rover? Concerns have been expressed that Land Rovers could be unstable if they had such a system in the back. Secondly, is the Minister happy with the procurement costs of the Bowman system, considering that it has recently been alleged that the present Smart procurement system is £1.7 billion in overspend?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the issues of weight are being dealt with. As for whether I am happy with the procurement of Bowman, the answer is yes. It is a real success story for Smart acquisition procurement. Since the Archer project was dropped, the Bowman project has reached its in-service date before approved time and to cost. I am afraid that such good news stories in defence procurement seldom receive much publicity, so I am very grateful to the noble Lord.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as a serving TA officer. Does the Bowman system meet the Minister's expectation in terms of data transmission?

Lord Bach: Yes, my Lords.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on having produced a communications system which is of this century rather than the last. We have had a difficult procurement process, and he is to be congratulated. However—as always—I notice that the United States is introducing the global information grid at a cost of 200 billion US dollars. Since we wish to be interoperable with the United States, and the digitised battlefield is the way ahead, with network-enabled capabilities—all the buzzwords—will Bowman work with it?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am flattered to be congratulated by the noble Lord. Today he is being a Liberal Peer; on other occasions, of course, he plays a great role as an independent armchair air marshal in our media. I hope that he is congratulating me in both his roles.
	To answer the noble Lord's question seriously, we are sure that we will be interoperable with the new United States programme. But I am still getting over his congratulations.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the Challenger 2 tank crews have reported noise interference with their intercom as a result of Bowman being installed. What action are the Government taking to correct this?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. There was an issue with Challenger 2; an intermittent problem occurred when the Bowman intercom system connected to current in-service equipment such as the noise reduction headset. Prompt action was taken to reduce the risks, and both the department and the prime contractors are working hard to provide a robust, long-term solution. We are confident that this will be available ahead of operational development.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, is it helpful to our armed services to discuss their equipment in such detail in a public forum such as this? Is it not better discussed in more private circumstances?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, but when we have a success story in this field, I want to shout about it.

Teenage Pregnancy

Baroness Walmsley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are their plans to reduce the pregnancy rate in 16 and 17 year-old girls.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the Government have in place a 10-year strategy to address the causes and consequences of teenage pregnancy, with a view to halving the rate of under-18 conceptions by 2010. Between 1998 and 2002, the under-18 conception rate fell by 8.6 per cent and the under-16 rate by 11.2 per cent. The next phase of the strategy will involve intensifying delivery in areas with the highest rates and work to reduce the incidence of unplanned second pregnancies.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. While I acknowledge that the Government's strategy is beginning to work for the under-16s, do the worrying figures for 16 and 17 year-olds not indicate the need for a different sort of message for the older teenage girls who really should be in education and training rather than looking after babies?
	Secondly, do the rather small and slow improvements not indicate that it really is time that sexual and relationship education should be a statutory part of the national curriculum, delivered by specialist trained teachers?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, let me take the noble Baroness's first point first. I entirely agree that every message we send should be tailored to its audience. Teenage pregnancy is a hugely complex question, with a combination of circumstances applying in each case. Getting teenage mothers back into education is a very important part of the strategy. The figures show that we are beginning to win—they went up to 29.7 per cent in 2003 compared with 23 per cent in 1997. So we are making progress.
	In terms of the statutory basis for PHSE, SRE has, as the noble Baroness knows, a partly statutory basis in the science curriculum. We keep the PHSE curriculum under review, but because it is such a wide and sensitive area of relationship education, risk assessment, and so on, for young people, we feel it is better for teachers to keep the discretion.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I believe that the teenage pregnancy rates for the under-16s are at their lowest since 1993. That is a success story, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, indicated. Are disadvantaged areas suffering from disproportionate levels of teenage pregnancy?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the most effective contraception policy is to raise aspiration and achievement among young women. One of the problems is that—these are astonishing figures—50 per cent of conceptions occur in only 20 per cent of wards, where conception rates are up to six times higher than in more affluent areas. However, having said that, many areas such as Liverpool and Tower Hamlets are doing very well.
	When I referred in my first Answer to intensifying the strategy, I meant getting better proposals for clearer messages, targeting schools with 20 per cent free school meals eligibility, taking part in professional development programmes and working with neighbourhood renewal units to co-ordinate targeted activities. There is a great deal more that we could do.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, it is six months since I asked the Minister why the same prominence was not given to the "say no" campaign as was given to the "know how" campaign. What is the Government's response to the report by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which states that, in the 15 to 19 age group, the number of pregnancies is down by 30 per cent over the past decade due to a "say no" campaign?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am very interested in the figure although I do not know the report. However, it does not accord with the other evidence that we have, which is that abstinence programmes on their own, especially when they are not followed up with education, support and advice, do not work as effectively as contraceptive programmes delivered and explained responsibly. That evidence comes from the United States, which has a higher rate of teenage pregnancy than we do and where a lot of different work is going on. However, I will certainly look at the report mentioned by the noble Baroness and write to her.

Lord Laming: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that becoming a parent is a lifetime commitment. Is there anything in this strategy that ensures that the fathers of these babies are able to carry out their continuing responsibilities?

Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords. Let me explain briefly what we are doing about parents. The strategy has two elements. First, it will help young teenage parents to become better parents, not by being judgmental, but by giving them support, especially through the Sure Start Plus pilot programme to ensure that they have all the support that they need. That is very important. Secondly, we are helping them to get back into education, work and training. However, fathers have been relatively neglected. A programme that I saw recently has commissioned research on how to assist fathers to become more involved in bringing up their children. That is being done by an organisation called Continue, which examines support needs and will provide a guide to practitioners.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, the Minister referred to the PSHE programme. Can she assure us that all schools—or at least the majority of schools—now have a teacher who is specifically trained to deliver relationship education?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that we are aware that sexual relationships education has been a little patchy. We are doing a great deal to raise quality and standards overall. One of the crucial ways of doing that is to develop continuing professional development for teachers in this field. Seven hundred teachers went through a new programme last year and another 3,000 will follow this year. That is the way to overcome some teachers' lack of confidence in teaching what is a very sensitive area of the curriculum.

Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, did my noble friend the Minister see the recent TV programme on teenage pregnancy? If she did, was she, like me, concerned when the young schoolgirl said, "It's no big thing to have a baby—everybody's doing it"? What are the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills doing to use other teenagers to try to develop an alternative cult that it is not cool to become pregnant?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the whole thrust of the sexual relationships education programme is to teach about responsible relationships and avoiding risks. Young people are clear that they do not want be taught only about sex. They want to be taught about relationships. That is the best message that we can send. The media campaign that has been running since 2000 is having an impact. Evaluations show that teenagers are well aware of what we are trying to get across, especially in the field of SRE, so the noble Baroness's prognosis was rather a gloomy one. I do not think that most teenagers would agree with that message.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us whether there is a link between under-age conception and under-age drinking?

Baroness Andrews: Yes my Lords; in fact, some research has proven the link. I refer the noble Viscount to the recent report by the National Children's Bureau on the basis of research commissioned by the DfES, which shows that there is a link between alcohol and under-age sex, especially in relation to early sexual experience. Clearly, what we are trying to do through the SRE strategy, the sexual health strategy and the alcohol strategy, especially in relation to binge drinking, is ensure that everything comes together in a coherent and strategic way at local authority as well as national level.

Lord Patel: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware of the significant number of children who responded to the Every Child Matters consultation asking for health services to be available in their schools, including at weekends. Children and young people want the services to include confidential help, support and advice on all aspects of sexual health. Does that kind of facility form part of the Government's strategy for sexual health?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, very much so. In fact, the strategy seeks to improve access to services in all settings. We are very aware that many young people cannot presently access services at the weekends and in the evenings. However, we have seen a 25 per cent increase in young people's consultations in community contraceptive clinics. We are looking to use Connexions, for example, and one-stop shops that are open at weekends and in the evenings. That is particularly important in rural areas. The noble Lord will appreciate that we are working with the Royal College of General Practitioners to develop much more teenage-friendly and accessible services in surgeries.

Electoral System

Lord Goodhart: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to review the electoral system.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Government remain committed to reviewing the Jenkins report and the experience of the major innovations to the electoral systems used in the UK that have been introduced since 1997 to assess whether changes might be made to the electoral system for the House of Commons.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in a minor way, this is an historic occasion because I think that I am the last person for the foreseeable future to be asking the fifth Question on the Order Paper.
	I hope that the Minister's response means that reports in last Friday's press that the manifesto commitment to set up a review had been blocked were at least premature. Do the Government recognise that there will be great concern if the manifesto commitment to carry out this review is not implemented before it is overtaken by the next manifesto?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in this historic moment the noble Lord will recognise that I will not comment on press speculation, but I stand by my Answer.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, has my noble friend noticed that the Liberal Democrats often bob up on this question of electoral systems in the wake of a disappointing opinion poll for them? The NOC poll today certainly confirms the pattern. However, would my noble friend agree that, in any review of the electoral system relating to the House of Commons, there would have to be overwhelming evidence and convincing reasons to change a well-tried and tested system?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, if one looks at the manifesto commitment, it is important to examine the fact that we now have five different voting systems. A person living in London has the opportunity to vote in five different systems. It is important that we review the effect and impact of those different systems on the population because part of wanting to ensure that citizens enjoy rights and responsibilities in our country is ensuring that they are involved in the electoral process. On that basis, a review is always welcome.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, will my noble friend give us a little more detail about what is happening in Scotland and the relevant timetable, because I understand that there were two reviews. One looked at local government elections and one at parliamentary elections. It would be useful to know when they are intending to report.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, when I have details of the Scottish proposals I shall write to my noble friend.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, would the Minister agree that one of the advantages of a different voting system would be that it would provide a better means of ensuring that more women and ethnic minorities were able to become Members of the other place?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there is a great deal of speculation about which voting system might engender a different result. As noble Lords will be aware, if one puts three politicians—never mind three psephologists—in a room together, one will have at least six different views on which voting system might be most appropriate. We all have our favourite system. In any review, it is important to consider the issue of representation and how we can represent people fully in our democracy.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness is right in saying that the Government should pay attention to what is happening in the various devolved assemblies and in Parliament. Is she aware that increasing numbers of people in Scotland are commenting in the press, and to one another, that list Members of the Scots Parliament are not working as hard as those elected by first past the post? That may well be because they are dependent on political parties for adoption next time, not on the electorate in general.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have heard some interesting and different remarks made about the different responsibilities of the different Members, including those of some who feel that Members should operate more as if they were constituency MPs—hence the discussions and dialogue to which the noble Baroness referred. I will keep in touch with her on that point.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, would my noble friend take it from me, as another one who is always bobbing up on electoral issues, that it will greatly please those who favoured this review as a moderate way forward on this vexed topic that she has confirmed that this time we are keeping our election manifesto pledge, whereas last time we broke it?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I would have been astonished if my noble friend had not bobbed up on this particular Question. I stand by the Answer that I gave at the beginning.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, would the Minister congratulate the Welsh Assembly, which has the highest proportion of women elected to any legislature in western Europe, as a result of proportional representation?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is a joy to work with colleagues in Wales, both men and women, and a joy to see women taking a full part in political life, which is where we belong.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, will there be an early review of the continuing scandal by which MPs from Scotland have very little to do in Westminster, because so many powers are reserved to the Scottish Parliament? That seems to be raising widespread concerns about their role here, and how it can be made more useful. Is that going to looked into, or just left?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, one might question the suggestion that those Members have nothing much to do. That is not the impression that I get. Certainly, if one carried out a review of the different voting systems, one would have the opportunity to consider all the systems and examine all the possibilities.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it may surprise the Minister to know that my experience as a Member of the European Parliament was that all UK Members of the European Parliament, almost without exception, find the existing system unsatisfactory. Could she confirm that, in the review, while recognising that proportional representation is the appropriate system to use for those elections, some of the other details of the system could be looked at with care?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not have any knowledge of what the terms of reference of the review will be, but I shall ensure that the noble Lord's comments are taken on board.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to an opinion poll today which showed that, compared with the last general election, the Liberal Democrats were up while the Labour and Tory parties were down, which means we shall gain more seats in the next election. I do not consider that to be disappointing.
	Would the Minister agree that the Scottish Parliament should be congratulated on introducing the single transferable vote in local elections in Scotland, which is the only system that combines voting for individuals with broad proportionality and constituency representation? Would it not be sensible, under local election pilots, to allow those local authorities that wished to do so to experiment with the single transferable vote for their own elections here in England?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am always grateful to hear about the latest opinion polls. Noble Lords who know me well know that I live with the possibility of hearing about opinion polls every day. Perhaps I could spend an hour or two with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, discussing the implications of an opinion poll that put the Liberal Democrats ahead and what it would mean if translated into seats at a general election, when or if there should be one.
	As for STV, there are equal and opposing views about the possibilities and the potential of everything—from the point raised by the late Lord Jenkins in terms of AV-plus, the AV system that operates in Australia and so on. We each have our favourite system; I am not sure that leaving the matter to individual local authorities to determine what they would like to do in particular circumstances would get us very far.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that people like to vote for an individual, not a list?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, when one considers voting behaviour and the reason why people vote as they do, one finds a whole raft of different issues. In a general election, it is common to find that people have not voted for the individual candidate but for the party. That happens in some of our local and European elections, too. The noble Lord's view of how electoral behaviour works is an interesting but, I might say, simplistic one.
	An interesting point to consider with regard to electoral systems is whether considering different systems enables one to identify the characteristics of voting more fully.

Lord Sewel: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that any output from the review of the electoral system in Scotland would require legislation in the two Houses of Parliament? Might it not be a good idea for those carrying out the review to be aware of and sensitive about that constraint?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sure whether the output will require legislation—it depends on what the output is. But I am sure that those considering the matter will be aware of any implications that there might be in legislative terms.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, can I make a straightforward clarification about business for today? The Order Paper says, in italics:
	"It is expected that any message on the Hunting Bill will be considered this day".
	I can confirm that the Hunting Bill will be considered today, after we have completed consideration of Commons amendments on the Pensions Bill.

Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason be now considered.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON

[The page and line references are to HL Bill 70, the Bill as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT

2 After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
	"Post-retirement marriages
	As of 6th April 2005 widows, widowers and surviving registered unmarried partners of all service personnel shall receive a full widows' forces family pension based on their spouses' or partners' length of service and final salary, provided that their marriage took place before the service personnel's 60th birthday."
	2A The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment 2 for the following Reason—
	Because it would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient
	2C The Lords do not insist on their Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A, but do propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof—
	Insert the following new Clause—
	"Post-retirement marriages
	As of 6th April 2005 widows or widowers over the age of 75 of all service personnel shall receive a full widows' forces family pension based on their spouses' reckonable service and final salary, provided that their marriage took place before the service personnel's 60th birthday."
	The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment 2C for the following Reason—
	2D Because it would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 2C, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2D.
	With the House's permission, I shall move the Motion and look forward to answering any debate that there may be.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 2C, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2D.—(Lord Bach.)

Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I am naturally disappointed that the Government have yet again rejected my amendment. The issue of post-retirement marriages is long standing and continues to create hardship for elderly and vulnerable widows. I should like to take the opportunity to thank the honourable Member for Aldershot, Mr Gerald Howarth, for his assiduous support of my amendment in another place. In addition, I express my thanks to noble Lords from all sides of the House who have supported me on this issue during the passage of the Bill, and the Minister for his forbearance.
	At this late stage, I do not plan to take the matter any further. It has never been my intention to impede the progress of the Bill or the pension improvements that will shortly follow. However, pension matters relating to particularly hard-done-by military widows are rarely brought to your Lordships' attention, so it was right to ask the Government to think again. Moreover, in rejecting the amendment, the Government have given the impression that when past injustices have occurred, they are not willing to correct them. I am sure that that is not the case, but that is certainly how many will now perceive it.
	The Minister in another place, Mr Ivor Caplin, on Monday repeated his offer to meet me and the Forces Pension Society to re-examine this matter after the Bill has passed. I look forward to taking up this invitation, and have taken some solace from what he said—namely:
	"I am open-minded on the possibility of a measure that might make further improvements for especially vulnerable groups of armed forces widows, and in particular some of those who are older and less well provided for".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/11/04; col. 1053.]
	As the Government know, they do not need a Bill to correct past pension anomalies. I therefore hope that, even at this late stage, and especially given the strength of feeling expressed in both Houses, we might still be able to find a way forward to help these elderly, vulnerable and unfairly penalised widows.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for his persistence, and I am sorry the Government have adopted such an inflexible line on this issue. The noble Lord made every effort to reduce his amendment down to a level of cost that was so low that it must have been affordable. He also argued convincingly that the issue of read-across to the rest of the public sector could be legitimately rejected. We on these Benches believe that the Armed Forces really are different and should be ring fenced.
	We have enormous sympathy with this deserving group of widows and are committed to resolve the post-retirement marriage issue when we come to power. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, mentioned that the Minister in the other place had offered to meet him and the Forces Pension Society, and that the Minister said that he was open minded on the possibility of a measure that might make further improvements for especially vulnerable groups of Armed Forces widows. I hope that that is not just spin and that the Government really will come up with something significant for the post-retirement marriage widows.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for the efforts he has put forward in raising this issue. I quite understand his reasons for not tabling another amendment today; he has brought forward the case. I very much hope that the Minister will not take the tone that he did after the last vote, and that some accommodation can be reached between the Ministry of Defence and widows who have found themselves in difficulty due to the legacy issues.
	With the passage of this Bill, we have lost another opportunity to put right some of the unfortunate aspects which have been left over due to the make-up of the Armed Forces legislation. The Minister said that accommodation will be reached with these groups. I very much hope that the most generous deal possible will be struck with them.

Lord Fowler: My Lords, I agree very much with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and of my noble friend from the Front Bench, but I agree particularly with what was set out by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. It is a very disappointing response. The reply given to us last time—that this was retrospective legislation—is not a good argument. As we all know, the Government do introduce retrospective legislation. The objection to enacting retrospective legislation is that it harms the citizen. In this case, there is no question of harming the citizen; we are trying to benefit the citizen.
	What we have lost here is the opportunity to put right a very longstanding injustice to widows. I mentioned earlier a case that came to me concerning a widow in her 80s who had been left literally for years to bring up her family without any support whatever. One can do nothing about that past injustice, but we can at least try to do something now to help those widows in their 80s.
	As I say, the Government's response is deeply disappointing. I do not claim that the previous government did more than the current one. However, from all sides we are saying to the Government that action should be taken. I very much hope that, as my noble friend indicated, if this Government do not do it, a future Conservative government will.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, it has been mentioned that all sides of the House are in support of the points that have been made and I would not want the Bishops' Benches to be excluded from that. Without wishing unnecessarily to extend the debate, I should like to add a few comments from these Benches. I should declare an interest as the national chaplain of the Royal British Legion and, in that role, say that these people are a special case. I endorse entirely the points which have been made. I hope very much that the Minister will take them extremely seriously.

Viscount Slim: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that in our debates there has been no real criticism of any sort about future pension arrangements for Her Majesty's forces, particularly for widows; a generous helping has been given there. As for saying that nothing can be done, however, as noble Lords have said, that is not proven. Very much to his credit, the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister acted wisely and boldly on the question of extra money for Far East prisoners of war. This is another case which any good government should be able to follow up. We are talking about real hardship, unfair treatment, and lack of interest by those in another place to put right something that has been wrong for far too long.

Lord Bridges: My Lords, it is clear that we will not get anywhere on this subject this afternoon, but perhaps one may be permitted to disagree with the reason given by the Commons—that this would,
	"involve a charge on public funds",
	and that that,
	"may be deemed sufficient [reason]".
	If an injustice has been committed, it may be necessary to spend public funds to put it right. I therefore hope that that reason will not be used in future.
	It is also worth drawing attention to the fact that the same anomaly and injustice occurs to the other branches of the public service where the widow's pension is subscribed for by the officer. If he happens to leave a widow but she was not married to him during his Crown service, then nothing will be paid. That has happened in our service—the Diplomatic Service—for many years. Although that does not carry the same weight in public sympathy as the case of widows of the armed services, it should be put right at the same time.
	There is an injustice here and it is a pity that the Government have not grasped it. If they are still in office after the next general election, I hope that they will do so.

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I, too, support the comments which have been made. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for his decision not to press the issue. It is very important to Armed Forces personnel that the Bill is passed before we prorogue. I am pleased that the Minister in another place has made the statement that he has. I just hope that the Ministry of Defence is aware that, because of that statement, when this House says goodbye to the Bill we will not be saying goodbye to the issue. We will want to know how it progresses. It is an area of concern to many of us.
	I also recall that the Government have made important concessions in the Bill for some widows. I am enormously grateful for that, as I know they are. However, the issue has arisen continually. Many noble Lords will want to follow it through until it is rectified.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend on his persistence. I hope that he will not be downhearted at not having his amendment, particularly his Amendment No. 2C, accepted. In my opinion, it was both too little and too late. If it had been accepted, it would have been difficult for him to come back to it again in the near future. As it has not been accepted, he may feel free to fight again—and hard—another day and very soon, with wide support from this House.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. The Bill began its parliamentary passage nearly a year ago and today we have reached the final stage. The Government have no doubt that the new pension and compensation schemes which the Bill will allow us to introduce are a good deal for service personnel.
	Perhaps I may briefly remind the House that the schemes contain a number of significant improvements. The Bill provides, first, a pension scheme based on final salary, against the general trend which is seen all too often outside. Secondly, it provides a very significant improvement to widows' and dependants' benefits, especially on death in service. Thirdly, there is an extension of benefits to unmarried partners, including same-sex relationships. Fourthly, it introduces common terms for officers and other ranks. Lastly, it provides a new deal for the more seriously disabled, significantly improving their benefits.
	Those improvements have been long sought by serving personnel and are strongly supported by service chiefs. I believe that they are widely supported in this House. In key areas they also reflect the concerns of many, many veterans' organisations.
	I have carefully considered the contributions made in the previous three debates on this issue in this House. I have also had the pleasure of reading the contributions made in the four debates in another place, including the most recent one that took place just two days ago. The arguments on each side have been clearly set out and I do not propose to rehearse the detail of our position today.
	However, let me say that the Government recognise that the issue under debate is not a trivial one. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has been a longstanding campaigner on this particular issue. I hope he will forgive me if I refer to the debate that this House had in 1995, which is when the noble Lord raised this issue previously. Looking at the voting lists on that Bill at that time it is remarkable to note that a number of noble Lords on both sides seem to have changed their positions since 1995. One person who has not is the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I pay tribute to him for that. He has been a longstanding campaigner on this issue and has powerfully and compassionately represented the case for addressing the needs of those widows whose entitlement to a pension is affected by the fact that they married their spouse after he left the Armed Forces. I take the opportunity, as have other noble Lords in this debate, of acknowledging the commitment and passion with which the noble Lord and others have argued this case.
	Only the most hard-hearted would not feel sympathy for such widows. We recognise that, in a world free of spending constraints, it would be desirable to do something for this and other pension legacy groups. However, those who continue to support a change on these lines must address—indeed, they and the noble Lord have addressed this issue—responsibly the very considerable financial implications. In short, our own conclusion is that the costs are not affordable and that it would be wrong for the Bill to fall because of this issue. I am grateful to the noble Lord for taking the attitude that he has today.
	There was a suggestion in the other place—not in this place, I am happy to say—that the Government's refusal to concede on this amendment was evidence of some lack of recognition of the needs of deserving widows of those who have served in our Armed Forces. That is an unjustified slur. I would like to remind this House that the Government have already clearly demonstrated their sensitivity to the needs of older veterans.
	Indeed, the House has just been reminded of the announcement made on 8 September in this House of a concession to the benefit of pre-1973 war widows. That was an entirely non-retrospective measure, reflecting the very special circumstances of a group of generally elderly and relatively poorly off war pensioners. That concession was targeted on a particularly deserving group, highlighted by the War Widows Association as meriting special treatment, whose case has long been championed by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, along with many other noble Lords in this House. The measure will cost the Government more than £20 million. Far from begrudging that, I am proud to have been able to announce it. Taken with earlier measures which we have introduced allowing retention of attributable pensions following post-retirement marriages and extending attributable benefits to unmarried partners, I argue that our record stands comparison with that of any other party which has been in government over the past few years.
	Finally, and importantly, I want to repeat today the commitment given by my colleague, the Veterans Minister, Ivor Caplin, in another place on Monday. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, referred to his words. Recognising the strength of feeling in this area, MoD Ministers remain open-minded on the possibility of a measure that might make further improvements for particularly vulnerable groups of Armed Forces widows, and in particular some of those who are older and less well provided for. We are prepared to meet the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the Forces Pension Society, once this Bill has received Royal Assent, to consider the issues raised in this area.
	Once again I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. This issue, and the issues surrounding it—other widows issues are involved—have aroused a great deal of interest in this House, not to say, a huge amount of sympathy.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Partnership Bill [HL]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

[The page and line references are to Bill 32, the Bill as first printed for the Commons]

COMMONS AMENDMENT

1 Clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out from "relationship" to "between" in line 5

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
	We come before this House today to discuss a Bill that provides same-sex couples with legal recognition of their relationships. We have developed this policy over a period of three years in relation to a specific problem faced by same-sex couples. We have done so after much work in government, after consultation with experts and the public, and by bringing forward appropriate legislation that provides not just for important protections for civil partners but also for onerous responsibilities and heavy obligations.
	During the scrutiny of the Bill in this House a series of amendments were passed on Report that brought within the provisions of the Bill close family relations. I have no wish to rehearse all the arguments we made at that stage. I am aware that many noble Lords voted the way they did for the best and most generous of motives in an attempt to improve the lot of relatives and carers. However, as I explained at Third Reading, the result would have been to rewrite the whole basis of social security, pensions and family law and render the Bill unworkable. The elected House removed those amendments and on that basis approved the Bill by a huge majority of more than 300 votes. It is important for this House to recognise that the Bill also has the support of all three party leaders. On this Bill we have consensus.
	I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, appears to have accepted that certain of the amendments had unfortunate, almost absurd, consequences which I am absolutely confident she did not intend to flow. I am also sure that other noble Lords who participated in that debate, and who have contributed immeasurably to the development and understanding of our laws and legal system, did not intend some of the bizarre and absurd consequences either. That is why I believe that many did not fully appreciate that the consequence of what they were voting for when they passed these amendments in June was in effect to bring the Bill to an end. I know that for some the repercussions have not been easy, and I very much regret that. I hope that today we can continue our discussions about this Bill in the finest traditions of this House with temperance, with good humour and with humanity.
	I believe that Martin Luther King said on 16 August 1967:
	"Where do we go from here?"
	In preparing for this Bill I was struck by the following words of Martin Luther King:
	"Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice. Justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love".
	We in this House have the power to do something remarkable for people who have been without succour and support for a very long time.
	The noble Baroness has put down further amendments that she seeks to propose in lieu. I do not wish to pre-empt that part of the debate. Therefore, I wish to address what I believe is the key concern of a number of noble Lords who voted for the noble Baroness's earlier amendments, which is the position of relatives and carers. There was a powerful sense that issues about which we needed to do more were unaddressed in relation to such people.
	Throughout our earlier debates, we heard much about the position of, as an example, two elderly sisters who lived together. I share noble Lords' entirely justifiable desire to help such members of our society to live their life in the best possible way. Perhaps it might help were I to explain the considerable rights already enjoyed by relatives who care for other relatives or live with them for significant periods before the death of one or the other.
	I shall take for my example two elderly sisters who own a property. They could arrange their affairs to be joint tenants, so that the survivor took the full title to the property absolutely on the death of the first person. If not, the surviving sister could be left the property absolutely by the other sister in her will. In that case, the surviving sister would enjoy a tax-free inheritance of £263,000. Where inheritance tax is an issue, the rules have already recognised in principle that people inheriting big, immovable assets such as a house can have difficulty meeting their tax bills up front. The provision exists for tax to be paid in instalments on generous terms, with an attractive rate of interest over as long as 10 years.
	It is then already clear that, for close relatives, there are ways in which the current system mitigates the effects of inheritance tax. Tenants often already have specific rights for family members. For instance, if two sisters live together with one of them renting the property from the local authority, on the death of the tenant, her sister typically would not be made homeless and have to move out, provided that they had lived together for a year. That is because typical local authority tenancies have statutory provision for succession to the tenancy by a family member who has been living with the tenant for just 12 months.
	In the private rented sector, under the Rent Act 1977, a family member who has resided with a tenant for two years before his death may succeed an assured tenancy. Family members of agricultural tenants also have special rights. By succession, they may become a protected occupier of a statutory tenancy under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, where a protected occupier dies and the family member has resided with him for a specified period immediately preceding his death.
	The relevant legislation provides other rights to relatives. For example, relatives may also join in the purchase where a tenant exercises the right to buy under the Housing Act 1985. More generally, family members of long leaseholders are able to acquire rights to a freehold or extended lease on the death of a tenant under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
	I know that the matter has caused concern, as several noble Lords have raised it on a number of occasions. I remind them that the Law Commission's recent review of tenure recommended that there be a single type of tenancy for all social housing with considerable security of tenure. It proposed that succession rights be available to spouses, cohabiting couples, other members of the family and carers. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is considering those recommendations and will respond to the Law Commission following publication of its draft Bill, which is expected early next year. There are also provisions in relation to fatal accident claims and dependency.
	I assure noble Lords that the position about which people have been concerned already offers considerable protection. Since 1997, the approach of the Government to the needs of relatives who care for one another has been a process of careful deliberation followed by measured action. I truly believe that we can be proud of that record. It is on the basis of it that I ask noble Lords to let us continue to deal with other similar issues in the most appropriate manner.
	Many of the improvements have arisen from the National Carers Strategy launched by the Government in 1999. The strategy was groundbreaking in that it was the first ever attempt to recognise formally the contributions and concerns of carers. We developed the strategy carefully after consultation with carers and the organisations that represent them. As issues arose out of that consultation, we took action to meet those concerns in a tempered and sensible way. For example, we have listened to the difficulties that carers and relatives can face in organising breaks away from their caring responsibilities, but at the same time having peace of mind that the people for whom they care will be well looked after. In order to improve support, we introduced the carers' grant, which supports councils in providing breaks and services for carers. That grant has increased annually, providing more than £325 million over the past five years.
	In 2000, we passed the Carers and Disabled Children Act to deal with the concern that, whoever they care for, carers all need the opportunity to make informed choices about the extent of their caring role, to maintain their own health and well-being and have sufficient freedom to maintain relationships. We have built on that with the short-term voucher scheme. In 2004, we progressed our valuable work further by supporting the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act, which ensures carers are able to take up opportunities which those without caring responsibilities take for granted. The current Mental Capacity Bill ensures that those making decisions in the best interests of a person should, wherever possible, take into account the views of,
	"anyone engaged in caring for the person or interested in his welfare".
	That would include carers and relatives.
	All those are sensible, measured improvements in the lives of those who care for others. They are targeted at the most needy. It is, after all, important to remember that not all relatives who live together will necessarily care for one another, so it is important that we target our measures at those who most need to benefit from any improvements. Indeed, the Government recently consulted Carers UK, which represents the needs of carers, whether they be relatives or not.
	Through that organisation's extensive surveys, carers have made it clear that issues such as capital gains tax and fatal accident compensation are not among their priorities. Their prime concerns include breaks for carers, services for disabled people, better financial support for carers while they are caring, the option for flexible working and the direct payments system. All those are issues that the Government have sought to address over recent years. I assure noble Lords that we will continue to look carefully at all those issues as they arise. We see no reason why progress should not continue to be made in that way. The Government are clear that we wish to build on those successes.
	Some noble Lords may say that that does not deal with the central issue, which is inheritance tax. However, the Government, as was the case for the previous administration, have other priorities than the abolition of inheritance tax. Inheritance tax affects only five in every 100 deaths in this country, but abolishing it would deprive the Exchequer of approximately £2.8 billion in 2004–05. Where would that shortfall be made up? Do noble Lords who propose the change advocate higher income tax or VAT, or would they cut the public services that help carers and relatives? The detail does not bear out the issues of concern. Where relatives live together as a long-term household, the inheritance tax provision of which they can take advantage amounts to £526,000. That is worth an awful lot, even at today's prices.
	It does not make any sense to create civil partnerships or voluntary registration schemes to tackle the concerns of relatives in caring situations. Indeed, we know of the strong concerns that carers' organisations themselves have about the arbitrary creation of a new legal status. This new legal status of civil partner has been specifically designed to meet the needs of same-sex couples. The solution to their problems has been determined by the particular nature of their relationship.
	The solution to the problems faced by other groups of people should equally be determined by the particular nature of their relationship. Noble Lords will appreciate that a whole plethora of different relationships can exist. In each case, the nature of that relationship will influence the nature of the solution. We say that one size does not fit all and I think we demonstrated that at Third Reading.
	The Law Commission issued a report in 2002 on home-sharers and concluded that it is far better to look at these issues on a case-by-case basis, determined in each and every case by the nature of the relationship. The Government respectfully agree.
	The Law Commission, the Law Society, the Solicitors Family Law Association, Carers UK, Citizens Advice, Age Concern and the trade unions all accept that this Bill is not the vehicle to make progress for relatives or carers. Holding this Bill to ransom to hasten that progress, will, however, benefit no one. Although we sympathise and understand the concerns of those who urge inclusion, we invite your Lordships to accept the amendment made by the other place and to allow this Bill to go forward unamended.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Baroness O'Cathain: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1, at end insert "and do propose Amendments Nos. 1A and 1B in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill":
	1A Clause 253, page 125, line 29, at end insert—
	"(10) No order may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has established a voluntary registration scheme, or schemes, whereby two persons can register their relationship where they—
	(a) are within the specified degrees of family relationship,
	(b) are both aged over thirty years,
	(c) have lived together as co-dependents for a continuous period of twelve years immediately prior to the date of registration.
	(11) The scheme or schemes referred to in subsection (10) above shall entitle two people who have registered their relationship to be treated no less favourably than two people who are civil partners of each other in respect of the following—
	(a) inheritance tax,
	(b) capital gains tax,
	(c) housing and tenancies,
	(d) fatal accident claims.
	(12) Schedule (Specified degrees of family relationship) contains provisions for determining when two people are within the specified degrees of family relationship for the purposes of this section."
	1B After Schedule 29, insert the following new schedule—
	:TITLE3:SCHEDULE
	:TITLE3:Specified degrees of family relationship
	(1) Two people are within the specified degrees of family relationship if one falls within the list below in relation to the other.
	Adoptive child
	Adoptive parent
	Child
	Former adoptive child
	Former adoptive parent
	Parent
	Sibling
	(2) In the list "sibling" means a brother, sister, half-brother or half-sister."

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, the Government introduced this Bill as,
	"a measure for social justice and equality".
	The need to promote fairness in society is, I hope and I am sure, always uppermost in our minds when we work together on legislation in this House. Sadly, however, this Bill in meeting that objective for one group of people seriously militates against another group. This cannot be fair or just. By this Bill, a new situation is created whereby special rights are given to some but not to others who are in equal if not greater hardship.
	Last June, your Lordships' House passed amendments to extend the benefits of the Bill to close family members who live together on a long-term basis. Of course it was right to vote for an attempt to remedy an injustice created by the Bill. The Bill has been returned to us without these amendments. Since June, many have mulled over the issues that were raised during those debates. This new amendment takes a new approach and I believe that this House should ask the other place to think again.
	First and foremost, the amendment does not change the nature of the Civil Partnership Bill. What it does do is seek to establish a parallel, but a very much more limited scheme for family members. Probably most of those who have spoken on this issue during the parliamentary proceedings both in this House and in the other place accept that a case has been made for the extension of the rights to siblings. In principle, it is widely accepted that, for example, two sisters who have lived together on a long-term basis should enjoy similar rights afforded to civil partners under the Bill.
	A recent opinion poll found that 80 per cent of the public would endorse this position. The principle has even been accepted by Stonewall, the gay rights group, but the argument has been—and I admit this straightforwardly—that this is not the right Bill. My concern is simple: we may never get the right Bill.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, sent me a letter in which she stated that there may be a time and place for a proper discussion and even future reform of family law. That is hardly a guarantee that the concerns of family members will be addressed in the near or even medium-term future.
	I passionately believe that the issue is so important it should not be left to chance. To reiterate: the principle of this amendment is to right an injustice which needs to be addressed. The Government have proposed that Parliament should help some people who suffer hardship because they cannot marry while at the same time refusing to help others in equal or even sometimes greater hardship; namely, family members who also cannot marry. It is not in the tradition of this House that we willingly pass legislation which creates injustice. We really must think again.
	There have been all sorts of half-hearted commitments to right this injustice. My amendment requires action and requires action now. But I would like to describe what this amendment seeks to achieve. In essence, it requires the Government to set up a parallel scheme for family members before this Bill is implemented. Under the Bill as it now stands, family members will have fewer legal rights and privileges than same-sex couples in a civil partnership. They will, therefore, have a lower legal status. In other words, to enforce my point, the Bill creates more injustice, not less.
	Let me be specific. A civil partner will be able to inherit assets tax free from the estate of his or her former partner. In the long address which the Minister gave on Amendment No. 1, she said that inheritance tax could be paid in instalments over 10 years. She also said that inheritance tax affects only five in every 100 deaths in this country. That is a slightly out-of-date statistic. The problem is a simple one. Whereas the value of houses has increased by approximately 100 per cent over the past five years, the value of the inheritance tax allowance has increased only in single figures in percentage terms.
	To say that inheritance tax can be paid in instalments over 10 years is a generous offer. However, most of the people to whom I refer in the amendment have no income. The only way in which they can pay the inheritance tax is by selling the home, the asset, which is what we want to avoid. We do not want people who have been in a caring, co-dependent, mutual relationship as family members to be booted out of their home on the death of one member, having to sell the asset to raise enough money to pay the inheritance tax and then to buy another home on a lower scale than that which they shared with the now dead partner. The civil partner will be able to inherit the assets tax free, but that is not so with family members.
	Civil partners will be able to pass on lump sums to each other free of capital gains tax. This is not so with family members. Under the Bill, a member of a civil partnership can inherit a statutory tenancy if his or her partner dies. With family members, such as two sisters, if one sister dies the surviving sister has the right only to an assured tenancy, as the Minister said. But there will be cases where that could result in rent increases or even eviction. The Minister stated that the Government were currently considering all this, but nothing concrete has emerged. However, when the Civil Partnership Bill becomes law, the civil partners will have a concrete advantage.
	The last of the four issues covered by Amendment No. 1A is fatal accident claims. In the case of fatal accidents, both civil partners and family members can sue for financial loss. If the accident is caused through the negligence of a third party, the civil partner can sue for bereavement damages of £10,000 but that course of action is not available to family members.
	All those injustices would be remedied by my amendment, which addresses the four areas of inheritance tax, capital gains tax, housing and tenancies, and fatal accident claims. It does not cover pensions or benefit entitlements—I can see a look of relief coming over the face of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. The Minister will note that, unlike the previous amendments, social security and pensions legislation need not even be mentioned in our debate because they would not be affected.
	I repeat that only the four areas that I have listed would be affected, and those are the ones that, rightly, I call "crisis areas". If those were addressed, it could make a huge difference to family members when facing the most traumatic and difficult time in their lives. The provision relating to those areas would not come into effect until after the death of a loved, caring and co-dependent family member.
	My amendment would require the Secretary of State to certify, before the commencement order was made for the Civil Partnership Act, that a parallel scheme for family members had been introduced. There is absolutely no reason why the amendment should delay the commencement of the Bill. I am not—I repeat "not"—holding the Bill to ransom. Bearing in mind that Ministers said that it will take a year for the Civil Partnership Act to be implemented, in the interim, provided that there is a will, there seems to be no reason why a parallel scheme for family members should not be drawn up and introduced. Given the widespread support for the proposal to help close family members, the Government could bring forward a short Bill. Obviously the details would be up to them, but my amendment would ensure that that was done.
	The range of family members covered in the amendment is narrower than in the amendment passed in your Lordships' House in June. It does not cover aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, grandparents or grandchildren.
	The Minister spent up to five minutes dealing with the issue of carers. My amendment does not cover carers; it does not even mention them, although the people who would benefit would all be involved in a mutually caring, supportive co-dependency. The National Carers Strategy does not apply, and nor do any of the other issues to which the Minister referred—the Carers and Disabled Children Act and the vouchers and so on. That is a red herring that should be eliminated from our discussions.
	There is nothing to prevent the Government bringing forward proposals to widen the amendment. However, in my view, the amendment before us deals with the most difficult cases of unfairness which are likely to arise as a direct result of the Bill.
	The amendment does not offer an easy way through for family members. The requirement is that close family members must have lived together in a relationship of co-dependency for 12 years—not just months or even a small number of years, but 12 years. Co-dependent family relationships deserve protection and this proposal would give it, albeit limited to the four crisis areas that I have outlined. The Government would be required to devise the detailed proposals relating to only four areas, which would in no way mirror the complete catalogue of rights to be given to civil partners under the Bill.
	The debates on my previous amendment led to the Government saying, in effect, that it was all too difficult. In view of the complexity of the pensions issue, I have some sympathy with that, although I remain convinced that, if the will had been there, the obstacles could have been overcome.
	I am sure that the Minister, in her usual gracious manner—she knows that I have the utmost personal respect and affection for her—will concede that I have adopted a much easier approach, albeit, I admit, at the cost of continuing injustice to family members in some severe areas of hardship. The amendment gives the Government flexibility in introducing a parallel scheme. It is simple; it is caring; it removes some injustice; it does not affect the rights proposed for same-sex couples in the Civil Partnership Bill; and, above all, it makes the Bill fairer for ordinary family members. I commend it to the House and beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1, at end insert "and do propose Amendments Nos. 1A and 1B in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill".—(Baroness O'Cathain.)

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this Bill is very much required. I hope that the House will accept the form in which it has come back to us from the Commons and reject the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain.
	The Bill is important because it deals with many of the issues which currently present problems for same-sex couples. At present, no mechanism is open to them for giving their relationships legal recognition or status. Those difficulties may relate to the rights of the next of kin, visiting rights in hospitals, key medical decisions or inheritance or pension issues. Anyone who knows of gay couples in secure, permanent relationships will know of the insecurity, trauma and distress that can be caused because currently no legal recognition is given to their relationship. I have no doubt that if the Bill is passed as it left the other place, it will provide stability to partnerships based on permanent and loving relationships.
	I listened very carefully to the speech of the noble Baroness. No one who heard that speech could doubt her sincerity in moving the amendment and no one could doubt the concerns that she has. That is not in question. But I believe that, if we were to pass the amendment, we would, in effect, make the Bill unworkable.
	The noble Baroness seeks to develop a parallel scheme for family members on the basis of what is contained in the current Bill, albeit with certain restrictions, as she described. Her amendment follows others which were discussed seriously in the other place and which I believe would have had largely the same effect. Not surprisingly, the Commons rejected those amendments by very large votes. They rejected them for very practical reasons, having been of the view that the Bill was not the right vehicle in which the matters raised by the noble Baroness should be considered. The Government and my noble friend have responded sympathetically this afternoon and have said that they will consider some of the issues raised in these debates.
	I turn to the practical reasons why we should reject the amendment. It is a fact that siblings and other family members already have legal recognition by virtue of being related. They do not need legal recognition in the way that same-sex couples do. The amendment is concerned with inheritance and capital gains tax, but what would be the cost? Today, the House of Lords is asked to take a decision which would commit the expenditure of billions of pounds. Today, in relation to inheritance tax my noble friend talked of a figure of £2.8 billion. If that figure is correct, it is a huge amount of government expenditure for the House suddenly to decide to commit. We do not have time to study the figures, and we have not had a chance to scrutinise them.
	The noble Baroness has not explained to any satisfaction why her amendment confines the matter to two people. Today, she came to the House with a figure of 12 years, but what is the justification for that figure? Why should the people involved have to be aged over 30? I have five children. What would happen if three of them shared a home, and two of them wanted to enter into partnership and one did not? Those practical difficulties need to be fully explored before your Lordships can decide whether this is a wise course of action.
	The amendment concerns practical, difficult and complicated matters of family law. Surely we should not alter the law without careful examination and parliamentary scrutiny of the highest order. Can we seriously commit ourselves to the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness and stop the rest of the Bill being enacted without giving those matters such careful attention?
	I doubt very much whether the Bill is the right vehicle to deal with the very legitimate questions raised by the noble Baroness. It is expressly designed to deal with same-sex couples; it has been thoroughly debated and examined on that basis. Why should single-sex couples in stable relationships have to wait for a long time before the legislation can be passed? If the amendment is passed this afternoon, I doubt whether the Bill will ever come into force because of the legal, practical and financial difficulties involved.
	A further and conclusive reason why we should reject the amendments is that the Government have clearly accepted that some of the questions posed by the noble Baroness deserve careful consideration. My noble friend Lady Scotland, in her careful introductory speech, has already spoken of the current rights of relatives and carers. I accept that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, does not suggest that we should talk about carers today, although they have been a subject of discussion in previous debates. My noble friend has already talked about what has been achieved and has said—I noted it very carefully—that we will continue to look at these other issues.
	This is a revising Chamber, and the Government have said that they are prepared to look at some of those matters. In the best House of Lords tradition, should we not accept that as a sensible way forward? Surely, on the basis that the issues have been raised and the Government have said that they are prepared to look at them, we could pass this Bill without amendment, bring comfort and security to many same-sex couples, and bring to the statute book a Bill that, I believe, commends itself, and ought to commend itself to Members of the House.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment. It depends how one looks at the issue, like most problems. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, addressed it in one way—from the point of view of same-sex couples. I agree that it is right that their status should be recognised. However, I disagree with the noble Lord because he raises no criticism of my noble friend's amendment in principle, or in its intrinsic purpose and value.
	I approach it in this way. If one seeks to do what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I both want to do, if what my noble friend Lady O'Cathain wants to do is not open to serious critical objection, and if this is a fair way of looking at the situation, is it not right to have parallel provisions in the interests of justice, so providing a position that does not create disparity between the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, looks at the issue and the way I look at it?
	The amendment has a very limited intendment. As I see it, it is not related to the status of marriage, although the lobby appears to think otherwise. It refers only to registrable family relationships. It is an attempt not to wreck the Bill, but to address a disparity and to create a just and fair resolution of a problem that requires resolution. It is inequitable to address one problem without addressing the other. The fact that it came late in the day is, I accept, unfortunate. But the fact that it is late cannot affect the fundamental merits of the argument. If the argument is sound, we have to deal with it.
	The amendment addresses the needs of a surviving partner. In an ageing population—I have read the debate—when there is little prospect of any satisfactory pension structure, when we hear about Land Commission proposals—I have heard about Land Commission proposals all my life and very few of them have ever been implemented—and, far more importantly, when there are security of tenure issues, there may be a need to sell up the home to fund the cost of care to which my noble friend referred, as so often has been the case and will continue to be the case.
	In a sense, the parallel not only rights the imbalance, but it serves as a humanitarian measure. It is an interim measure. The problem is that, at the moment, the scheme favours only one aspect of the social problem. It is obvious that implementation of the scheme will involve fiscal matters that will have to be dealt with in a Finance Act. Security of tenure will have to be dealt with by amendment to relevant extant legislation in that sphere. But the principle of the amendment is entirely sound and fair and should be accepted as such.
	At this stage it would have been wholly inappropriate—perhaps it is unfortunate because it is late—to set out detailed provisions of how each relevant extant statute should be amended to give effect to the principle. This is an amendment in principle; it is sound in principle; it is fair in principle; and it is worthy of your Lordships' support.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I fully support the aims of the Civil Partnership Bill. Moreover, perhaps not unnaturally with my equal opportunity background, in June I was one of those who voted for the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. Frankly, that was because I shared, and still share, the noble Baroness's concerns about the oft overlooked difficulties faced by family members living together, and, indeed, although they are not part of the amendment, by carers who often face severe financial and social hardship.
	Since we last debated the matter I have studied the many letters that I am sure many of your Lordships will have received and have listened to what the Minister has said and what she has said in letters to those noble Lords who wished to hear about the matter. I am now persuaded that there are substantial as well as technical reasons why this Bill is not suited for the laudable—and I do mean that—intentions of those supporting the noble Baroness's amendments.
	On this occasion, therefore, I shall, if a Division is called, vote for the Bill as it has been returned to us. That certainly does not mean that the aim to bring family members to equal status with those in civil partnerships should be abandoned. When I say others in similar situations I have in mind, for example, the caring relationship that might exist between three elderly siblings and an elderly parent with more than one child supporting him or her. I am now convinced that a framework based on a partnership model of just two people is clearly inadequate to cope with situations of that kind.
	But once this landmark legislation is passed, as I very much hope it will be, the leapfrogging series of laws of the 1960s, 1970s and even later, by which women and ethnic minorities gradually achieved equal rights, sets a possible and important precedent for the way forward.
	So I hope very much that the Government will bring forward an early—and I mean early—Bill to achieve that aim. If the Government do not, then if the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, brings forward a Private Member's Bill, I, for one, shall do my very best to support her.

Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords—

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords—

Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, I always give way to a bishop. We bishops are courteous to each other.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, the noble Lord is very kind. I thank him.
	I think that all noble Lords around the House very much share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I believe that that places us in a difficulty. However, I want to suggest two principles that are at stake that might suggest to the noble Baroness and to the House that the Bill is not the vehicle within which to achieve her aim.
	Let me put the matter in another context. Let us suppose that the Minister had come to this House with a Bill to set right the issues of civil justice for people of the same sex who are living together. Under the terms of matrimonial law I would have had real difficulty. This Bench and people more generally would have had difficulty. Matrimonial law is a parallel, but it is a different field of law. Perhaps I may say to the Minister that it would be good to have on record that the public understanding of marriage held in the law of this country is not affected by this Bill. That would help us enormously in getting the matter clear.
	I said in the Third Reading debate that the mess we got ourselves into at the end of the day was also about the principle. In this House we should not pass Bills that lack clarity of principle. The clarity of principle of this Bill is that it deals with relationships between people of the same sex. That is the central principle of it. It is different from marriage but it has this parallel. One of the reasons people in my office and the clergy encourage people who are living together to enter into marriage, recognising that marriage is a relationship between the two of them and not just a statement in the law, is in order that the community as a whole should be clear about the relationship that they are in. The Bill achieves that for people of long-term relationships of the same sex. It is not just about gay couples; it is about people of the same sex. That is very important because a whole variety of relationships are covered under this matter. I believe that it is important that we hold to the integrity of the Bill.
	The third thing to say—and here I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe—is that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, would be better served by dealing separately with the complex matters of law that surround family relationships. There is a sense in which this amendment does not achieve all that needs to be achieved in that area. I think that we would be helped if the Government were a little more upfront in saying that they recognise that a whole field of relationships and consequences in human rights needs to be addressed. If the Minister were able to give us a little more encouragement in that area, I think that we might be able to progress with this Bill.
	However, what I am not happy to see is our losing the Bill around this issue. It is important that we do not lose the Bill at this stage in the Parliament.

Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, I am grateful to right reverend Prelate for that contribution. I am glad that I observed the convention of this House and gave way to him because I agree with almost all that he has said. My one caveat is on the question of marriage. I think that people who equate—I know the right reverend Prelate did not—this Bill with marriage do a great disservice to the Bill and to marriage. Marriage is quite a different relationship. It is the union—one hopes for life—of a man and a woman. It has a special place in our tradition because it has been sanctified by the sacramental tradition of Christianity. It is very important to preserve that. Those who either support or oppose the Bill obfuscate the whole issue when they talk about gay marriages.
	We do not have to take our theology from the tabloid press; we do not even have to take it from the compact press. That is an arcane tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, who unfortunately is not in his place because he is having a tooth out. While I agree entirely in principle with the noble Baroness—and, indeed, said so on Report—I have my doubts about the matter because of the risks that this amendment poses to the success of this Bill, which has been achieved with so much sacrifice and with so much preparation.
	So my objection to my noble friend's amendment is not that it is wrong in principle—it is right in principle. If the Government really want to see this Bill get through, I would very much welcome some firmer words, as the right reverend Prelate has said, as to what would be done for these families. I should be very happy to join my noble friend Lady O'Cathain in an ecumenical effort—ecumenical in these circumstances because we are in disagreement on this point—to do something positive, concrete and real to help not only relatives but also carers.
	The amendment is wrong not in principle but in practice. It is the wrong time and the wrong place. To take the time first, to produce an amendment of such importance and complexity for the whole of our family and constitutional law at the last moment surely cannot be right. It cannot be right for the House, without the supporting documentation, research, knowledge and all the preliminary work that must be done, to accept the amendment.
	Secondly, it is in the wrong place. My noble friend said that the Bill would right an injustice and create others, but we can look at it in quite a different way. There are all sorts of injustices in these complex relationships. The Bill does not create a new injustice; it gets rid of one of the injustices, which is a very important advance. Therefore, we can support the Bill in good conscience while wanting other measures to be proposed to right other wrongs.
	No one could disagree with my noble friend's principle, but the effect of the amendment could be to wreck the Bill—she does not intend that, but I am considering not her intentions but the effect—which rights an injustice and which carries the hopes of many people with it.

Lord Alderdice: My Lords, it is the mark of a skilled, astute and experienced parliamentarian to be able to use a measure proposed for one purpose in order to bring to the attention of the House and the country at large another matter of enormous importance. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has clearly done that.
	There is little doubt in anyone's mind that the noble Baroness has pointed up a matter of injustice and enormous and widespread importance. There is no doubt about that. However, it is also clear that what she has raised is a separate matter—she herself described it as a parallel matter. The right reverend Prelate clarified for the House in a marvellous way why it is such a separate matter. The matter that we embarked on with the Bill was the way to address the question of same-sex relationships between two people and the fact that there was no legal standing for such relationships and it was important that legal standing be given not just for financial reasons but for a range of important compassionate reasons.
	When the noble Baroness raises this further question, she ventures into an area of enormous complexity, because it is not just about the relationship between two people. Many families involve many more than two people, and the two who are living together may not necessarily be the two who are closest together by relationship.
	Perhaps because of the average age of the House, there has been a good deal of concentration on elderly couples who may be living together—two older sisters, or whatever. But a very common situation is that of a woman or, indeed, a man in her or his 30s or early 40s with an ailing elderly parent. Were there such a system, there might be pressure to enter into an arrangement for practical, personal and other reasons. Then, someone else important comes along for that relatively young person, in her or his 30s or 40s, which complicates the issue. It complicates the issue in any case, but it will complicate it a good deal further if questions of registration, finance and so on have been brought to bear.
	I do not raise that as an argument for not addressing the question. I am simply saying that the noble Baroness has encouraged us to consider a question even more complex than she has perhaps been able to address in her amendment. The difficulty is that in an attempt concisely and perhaps a little briskly to address a particular injustice—injustice there undoubtedly is—one can create a worse situation, which is not what anyone wants to do. Matters of family and relationships require consideration; they require us to think them through. Of course, no matter how deeply we think them through, we will not remove all difficulties, complexities or injustices, but we owe it to those who may be affected to give them serious consideration and ensure that, as far as possible, we remove complexity, difficulty and injustice.
	For myself and, I suspect, for most Members of your Lordships' House, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that question. When she says that she thinks that it will be prolonged beyond next year, she is perhaps being a little despondent about what results next year may bring. The matter that she has raised should not be forgotten, but nor should it be given short shrift, either by being set aside or by being too readily adopted. That might not only disadvantage the Bill on which we have embarked but not do the service that she would wish to the many people who deserve our attention on that other side of complex family relationships.

Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has a great gift for making what I call the penultimate speech, the speech that is designed to draw forward the Front-Bench speakers, because everything that must be said has been said. Most things that must be said have been said, but just a little has been left out. I ask your Lordships' indulgence for a brief speech. I have spoken only once before during these proceedings. That was on Second Reading, to say that, on balance, and with some regret, but with honest intention, I was in favour of the Bill. I remain so.
	I do not accept the argument that the amendment would wreck the Bill. There is plenty of time for the other place to send it back without the amendment and an opportunity would then be provided for Members of the other place also to say something that has not been said that should be. We have all been schooled throughout all these debates to regard this as something distinct and separate from and not related to marriage. So be it, let us accept that it is so.
	In that case, all the issues in the Bill must be dealt with as not pertaining to marriage. One of them, probably the most delicate and therefore the least referred to, is the relationship between those whom the Bill is principally designed to benefit and the rest of the community. At present, the Bill is designed to benefit them outside marriage in a way that other couples, such as those that my noble friend has described, who are, let us admit, far more numerous, are not to benefit. That will be seen as unfair and will attract hostility.
	I expect that your Lordships will test your feelings on the matter in a Division; I shall support my noble friend. Whether the amendment goes back to the other House or falls here, the Government must accept that, in engendering the Bill, they have brought on themselves a duty to secure a perception of fairness between those who benefit from it and those who are excluded from those benefits. I remain a friend of the Bill, but my friendship is tempered by the imperfection that my noble friend is trying to remedy. If she fails, as I fear she may, that must be tackled by the Government, and soon.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, following a series of extraordinarily elegant speeches, I want to pick up on two issues and respond to the noble Baroness's question of justice. There are many injustices in this nation and this world. I have spent most of my working life struggling and working against those injustices as a social worker, a carer, and in many other roles. Speaking from the Cross Benches, I am clear that, if we vote for the noble Baroness's amendment, we will wreck the Bill, and therefore will not alleviate one injustice but create another.
	For all the eloquent speeches that we have heard, the Bill is about a real justice: equality for people who choose to live in same-sex couples and to spend their lives together in fidelity, honesty and caring. My many friends in such relationships, whom I know well, who have brought up children—I have worked with children in those situations—show many of the wonderful characteristics that one finds in a good marriage. I do not equate those relationships with marriage.
	I plead that we do not lose the Bill. Many hope that it will confer on them a status that means that, when they go into hospital, the person with whom they live can make decisions about their treatment if they are unconscious, not parents who have been hostile to them for 20 years, since they began to live with their partner. They hope that they will not have the worry of inheritance—I accept that many others have that worry—and that they will not find themselves making difficult choices between their family and their partner, for practical rather than emotional and loving reasons.
	I know that many noble Lords will have voted for the amendment at the previous stage, believing that they were supporting many other people in the community. Regardless of what the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, says, there are other issues to be addressed. If we try to address them in this Bill, we will have laid down a marker for those people, but we will have lost equality for same-sex couples.
	I wish to reinforce the point made by the noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches. Much of my work has been in contentious family situations. We must remember that many caring situations and family situations—noble Lords know their own families—are not benign; people live in hostile and difficult situations. The amendment could put them into a chained situation. I have had to intervene where dominant, aggressive, old fathers have been determined to keep their daughters caring for them. The amendment would give such people a real opportunity to continue that.
	I am relieved to hear that we are not focusing on carers, but they are an important element. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, cannot attend the debate because of a family difficulty. But she would have been careful in saying, with her grace and authority, that carers, carer organisations and family organisations are all anxious that the amendments are not agreed. Those of us who deal in family law know that the complications would be horrendous for ordinary families, and many legal groups have told us so.
	I recognise that, depending on what we do, we will send out a different message. I do not believe that the message will go out that we do not care for people who live together. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I think that the combinations in the amendment are extraordinary—if you were living for four years with someone for whom you cared, or if you lived with three siblings for five years, you would receive these benefits. I cannot understand the package that creates these odd benefits. I would like the Government to think the matter through in detail. If we agreed the amendment, we would send out the message that we do not believe that gay people in a relationship have the right to establish themselves in equal households.
	These days, many noble Lords are afraid to use such words in the House because of the difficulties caused in the previous debate, but I say with great gentleness that the people in those communities who feel that homophobia is still rife in this country will receive another message if we wreck the Bill: that we are a homophobic society which does not care that these groups of people have a right to love, justice, care and tenderness. The amendment would wreck the Bill, although I am sure that the noble Baroness does not intend it. I therefore deeply hope that noble Lords will reject the amendment and keep the Bill.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, is to be in a formidable position, because she speaks with great knowledge and understanding. I hope that I may be permitted to make just a few observations, despite the fact that my noble friend Lord Elton, in that engaging way that he sometimes has, says, "I fancy that this is a penultimate speech, so I shall make my speech and everyone else can keep in their place".
	The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in a most engaging and impressive speech, tried virtually to remove from its place the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, suggesting that it was impossible and unusable. My noble friend was right to table the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said that they had tried to rewrite the whole basis of family law; that is a very impressive and formidable task. Part of the trouble is that the Bill has produced an inequality, which my noble friend Lady O'Cathain is trying to address.
	The Bill is specifically designed, as the noble Baroness said, for same-sex couples. That is fine, except that it happens to have upset the balance with ordinary couples. We heard the story of two sisters who had lived together for a number of years. One died and the other was obliged to pay inheritance tax. That would not apply to a same-sex couple who had lived together for two weeks. My noble friend is trying to point out that that is not fair. If the law was wrong previously, we have tipped it over into being wrong again now. It is hard when that happens.
	It has been said that there are 40,000 couples living in a same-sex relationship, but it is reckoned that only 5 per cent—2,000—are likely to take advantage of the provision. One wonders whether it is right to introduce a law which specifically benefits 2,000 couples but equally specifically does not benefit others in a similar set-up, in so far as they live together but do not have the particular business of being in a same-sex relationship. That is the point that my noble friend makes. If we alter the law for same-sex couples, that is fine, but we should not prejudice the law against those who are not of that particular persuasion. If the time comes, therefore, I will vote for my noble friend's amendment.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Earl has frequently told the House that it is entirely wrong to pass the Hunting Bill because it has had insufficient consideration. How, then, does he think it right to agree to this amendment, which first saw the light of day yesterday?

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Viscount can bring the hunting law into the debate on this Bill. This Bill has been considered for a very long while, and there is an injustice in it. It is my noble friend's endeavour to remove that injustice.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, made what I think was a very good Second Reading speech on a proposed Bill to set up arrangements to deal with couples and family members who live together in relationships other than marriage and civil partnerships. But inherent in that Second Reading speech was the problem inherent in the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain.
	I urge the noble Baroness to look at the success that she has had in raising consciousness about inequalities and injustices that undoubtedly exist. What has been achieved so far should be used as the basis for taking forward a parliamentary campaign in which we can give, as legislators, proper scrutiny and consideration to the immensely complex issues involved, even in the skeleton arrangements outlined in her amendment.
	I would urge that we should behave as responsible legislators in this revising Chamber. It is not responsible to try to legislate in haste and on the tailcoat of other legislation that is dealing with a specific issue on areas of complexity and importance that other parliamentarians need to consider in great detail.
	The noble Earl just spoke about the Hunting Bill. It seems to me that that is a very good Baldrickian cunning plan for dealing with all sorts of related issues to different legislation. We could have an amendment on the Hunting Bill proposing that it should not come into force until the Secretary of State has brought forward a scheme to deal with factory farming or fishing or all sorts of other animal welfare issues that people think need to be addressed. We do not have time—I hope that there is not time—for anyone to take this forward as a manuscript amendment.
	The withdrawal of the original amendment shows that we do not have a situation in which a Bill can simply be extended to deal with another category of cases. If we do not have that, we should not attempt to deal with it in this legislation. We should accept that a great deal has been achieved in highlighting injustices and take that forward in a separate way.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, on the issue of responsible legislators, would not the simple remedy be for her Front Bench to give a commitment to bring in the necessary legislation?

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I do not imagine that the noble Baroness will answer.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I cannot answer for my Front Bench. But every one of us is able to put pressure on the Front Bench. It is not as if the Government have not moved already and signified their intention to take those matters forward. The exact detail and proposals have to be done as proper legislators and policy makers. Every one of us is capable of participating in that process.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, in the context of the previous two speakers, I should like to put a proposition to the House. When any government introduce legislation to right an injustice against one group of society and inadvertently in doing so introduce an injustice against another group in society, it seems to me that that government have an obligation to right that wrong.
	If, as in this case, the first group are powerful and a well organised lobby and the second group are weak and have no voice—the subject of a voice for parents is very close to my heart—the Government have a double responsibility to care for those who are disadvantaged. I am sorry that they do not seem to be taking seriously their responsibility in that respect. I was grateful to hear such assurances as the noble Baroness gave, but they did not to me carry great conviction. I would hope for a very much stronger assurance from the Front Bench before I would be prepared to let up on the pressure that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, is bringing on the Government, quite rightly in my view, to take the matter further—whether through or beyond this Bill.
	It is with a great sense of regret that I have to say that over the past two or three years—entirely contrary to their assurances on the subject—the Government have taken a number of actions which suggest that they are less conscious of the huge debt that we as a nation owe to families, to the work that they do, to the mutual caring that they carry out and to their job in raising children. The Government are much less conscious than they ought to be. They are not leading us in the direction of appreciating the role that families play in our society.
	I shall not delay your Lordships for more than about another minute. Turning to the Bill, I take a different view to a number of speakers. There is plenty of time for the Government to come back tomorrow if they want to. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, is capable of being amended in such a way that would overcome quite a number of the objections that the Minister has put forward. It is right to vote for the amendment and to try to force the Government to go at least one stage further either in accepting the amendment, and amending it in a suitable way, or in giving us much stronger assurances that they will really address this problem.

The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly make another penultimate speech in your Lordships' House. I am grateful for the assurances of my right reverend friend the Bishop of Chelmsford that the Bill before us does not introduce same-sex marriage. I am grateful for the assurances of the Government at earlier stages. But the difficulty is that the details of the Bill as it stands so closely parallel the arrangements for marriage that there is a real danger of a de facto introduction of same-sex marriage by that process.
	The history of social legislation in this country is often that the consequences are not quite those that are stated as intended. One sees that in all sorts of areas, including divorce and abortion in family law. In some ways, that makes it difficult to accept the amendment before us. The range of relationships that ought to be dealt with under a Bill, as has been stated so eloquently, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is very persuasive.
	However, if the Bill is left standing alone, without any other measures being introduced at some point, paralleling so closely the provisions for marriage, de facto we will have a perception of same-sex marriage. If that situation simply continues without the other provisions pressed for by noble Lords, it will look very anomalous and even more unjust than many noble Lords have suggested.
	I should like to ask the Front Bench to offer at least some indication or assurance that the range of issues raised today will be taken seriously. The logic of the Bill before us demands that.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, in response to what my noble friend Lady Howarth said about equality of family households comprising same-sex or opposite-sex couples, I have been very reassured from what I have heard today about the distinction between marriage and what we are proposing here.
	My concern is that we must avoid confusion about the desirability of same-sex couples having children. I know that most research so far suggests that that is not harmful for children. But I would like to put on record that I am concerned that if a boy is born into a family where both parents are women that may leave a boy quite confused when he grows older about what it is to be a man and how a man and a woman relate together. I should like to take this opportunity to convey that concern.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, perhaps I may follow what the right reverend Prelate said about the nature of the Bill. A little while ago, I asked the Government in a Written Question:
	"In what respects, other than its availability to persons of the same sex, a civil partnership as envisaged in the Civil Partnership Bill differs from a civil marriage".
	The noble Baroness gave me her Answer:
	"There are a number of differences between civil partnership and civil marriage; for example"—
	this is the sole example that she gave—
	"a civil partnership is formed when the second civil partner signs the civil partnership document, a civil marriage is formed when the couple exchange spoken word".—[Official Report, 16/7/04; col. WA 161.]
	I leave noble Lords to decide whether that is a very clear and emphatic distinction between the two.
	I want to say something immensely personal about this amendment. Twenty years ago my wife and I were severely injured. Had the IRA been a little more successful, and had I died, I have no doubt whatever that one of my children would have put aside their life and career to care for my wife. Under the law as it is and under the law as the Government intend to leave it, there would be no option, when my wife then died, but for that child of ours to be forced out of the family home by the need to sell it in order to pay inheritance tax.
	Had I been so deeply affected by that bombing, and had my wife died, that I should have chosen to enter into a civil partnership with someone I had known for only a few weeks, when I died my civil partner would not be in the position in which one of children would have been put. That answers the question of whether there is any injustice in this Bill.
	Most noble Lords accept that there would be an injustice. I regret that so many who have spoken say that they are in favour of removing that injustice, but not yet. It is of course entirely wrong to say that the amendment of my noble friend is a wrecking amendment. It would make no change whatever to any provision of this Bill as it affects same-sex partners. I repeat: none whatever. Therefore it cannot be a wrecking amendment.
	I have before me all 400 pages of the Bill in which not a single mention of inheritance tax is made; not one word. Yet the debate we are now having centres not on society's regard for those who enter into the sacred contract of marriage as opposed to those who form a civil partnership; rather, the debate we are having is about money, and nothing else.
	As ever, I like to help people out of problems into which they have got themselves. Therefore I offer a solution which would enable my noble friend to withdraw her amendment and for the Bill to go on its way. The solution is very simple; that is, for the Government to state that in subsequent Budgets they will not make changes to the arrangements for inheritance tax as a consequence of the passage of this Bill. Civil partnerships would be accorded whatever standing people like to give them while marriage would go on in the same way. And there would be a blessed interval during which all those who are anxious about what they, Ministers and all of us see as an injustice in respect of taxation towards children, parents and siblings would be able to correct it.
	The Government could undertake not to bring forward in any Budget arrangements affecting civil partnership which did not extend to the categories of persons broadly encompassed by those affected either by the amendment passed by this House and rejected by the Commons, or those who might be affected by my noble friend's amendment. That would get us all off the hook. If the Government choose not to do that, I hope that noble Lords will see that this is a matter about money and taxation, and that it is a question of introducing a new inequality between the very large numbers of parents, children and siblings who would suffer an injustice and the very small number of same-sex partners who would benefit financially from the kind of Budget we may envisage in the future.
	This Bill can go through, but I want to hear the Government say that they will not give a tax advantage to civil partners which they will not give to others who are equally deserving. The problem would be resolved and I hope and believe that my noble friend would be willing to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, I want to introduce a different dimension to the debate. We have been concerned about taxation and about carers, but I should like to speak on behalf of those who are in need of care. I come to this debate as a trustee of a body called the Home of Compassion. It is a place that cares for people in physical distress and infirmity.
	I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has had to leave her place—although I see that she has not left the Chamber—because I want to refer to the Care Standards Act 2000 which changed so substantially the requirements on care homes that, with the kind of finance that is available for indigent old folk, they are finding it difficult to continue in being and provide care. As the noble Baroness will know, many hundreds of care homes have had to close. I understand that in the year up to April 2004 some 500 homes had to do so, resulting in the loss of something approaching 10,000 places; and over the years the loss has been much greater.
	It seems that there is a squeeze on the ability to provide care in care homes for those who need it. That filters through to the financial disadvantages visited on those who undertake to care for relatives. I had an aunt who, as the youngest daughter, devoted her life to caring for others. Such people are heroes in our society. We owe them so much. However, if on the one hand we are putting a squeeze on the provision of places in care homes and on the other hand not providing the kind of support and fair deal that would encourage people to continue in their caring roles, then we are doing a great disservice to those in need of care.
	There is a lacuna in the Government's thinking on this. Where do they stand in supporting and helping those in need of care? I align myself with the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley. We want more than an undertaking from the Minister to consider these issues. We want a commitment from the Minister that the Government will bring forward proposals, perhaps in a White Paper within the year, to address this urgent and important problem in our society.
	I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, on bringing this matter to our attention from her standpoint, but I hope that the Minister will reflect on the other issues I have raised and see if she can go further—tonight—and give us an undertaking that the Government will not only consider the matter, but will also bring forward a White Paper containing proposals.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I rise to say only that I take exactly the same position on this Bill as my noble friend Lord Elton. I support it and I think that its provisions are good, but it would be utterly wrong not to support my noble friend Lady O'Cathain in sending this Bill back to the Commons with her amendment. We all know that the Commons can override us, but it would be wrong not to take the opportunity to make them think about this issue. Moreover, I am afraid that I do not have much faith in the proposal to see some interesting proposals five years hence. It is time now to remind them that there are other issues as well as the important one—which I fully support—of recognising the problems of single sex relationships.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, we welcome back the Bill in a much healthier state than when it left the House. I should like to record our thanks to the Ministers and their team who have worked so hard to make this reform a reality. I should also like to pay tribute to the late Lord Williams of Mostyn who did not live to see the fruition of a measure which he supported with great personal conviction. We miss him greatly.
	In the other place, the previous amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, which the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, powerfully supported, was removed by a majority of five to one, with firm and welcome leadership from the Opposition Front Bench. We share some of the stated aims of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, but not her means of achieving them, for reasons that have been repeated again and again throughout the House.
	The new amendments are narrower than the original version, which was overwhelmingly rejected by all political parties in the Commons, but, if enacted, they would still be wrecking amendments, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, in particular, has so clearly explained. They are alien to the central purpose of the Bill and would make it impossible for the Bill to come into force.
	The new amendments would prevent the Bill coming into force until a voluntary registration scheme, or schemes, had been established by the Secretary of State which would entitle only relatives over 30 years of age who had lived together for 12 years to be treated in the same way as same-sex civil partners as regards what the noble Baroness describes as "four crisis areas".
	Last Tuesday, 9 November, the Times published an advertisement by the Christian Institute under the banner headline,
	"I have lived with my sister for 15 years. When she died I had to sell our home to pay the inheritance tax. Why should I have less house-sharing rights than a gay couple?".
	The advertisement carried a photograph of a sad lady with a wistful expression. But in the fine print it emerged that she was not a real person but what was described as,
	"an image posed by model for illustrative purposes only".
	I am sure it was none the worse for that. The Minister has explained very clearly the legal protection already given to sisters living together which is not available to homosexual couples.
	A further answer to the question posed by the Christian Institute's advertisement, and a short answer to these amendments, is that two sisters living together are not in the same position as a married couple any more than they are in the same position as a same-sex couple who register their partnership under the Bill, if it becomes law. As we all know, a homosexual couple living together cannot marry because they are homosexual. Two sisters living together cannot marry, not because of their sexuality but because they are sisters, just as a father cannot marry his daughter even though they are of the opposite sex.
	In other words, this is not a case of what is sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander. Those whom the Bill is designed to protect—same-sex couples who are willing to enter into a partnership with rights and responsibilities as if they were married—are not comparable to two sisters who have lived together for 12 years. So, when the amendments state that two sisters are to be treated no less favourably than two people who are civil partners—that is, a same-sex couple—they are making a false comparison; they are not treating like with like.
	The Bill does not undermine marriage by treating registered homosexual couples in terms of their rights and obligations as if they were married couples. But it would indeed undermine marriage if two sisters, or perhaps more, were treated as if they were married to one another.
	The noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, is right to emphasise the need not to confuse civil partnership with marriage. I have always made it clear ever since my Private Member's Bill that I would not wish to do so. I am very glad that we have not followed the position taken, for example, by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, which led to certain consequences, perhaps, in the presidential election in the United States.
	The arguments about inheritance tax, capital gains tax and so on, and other family relationships and connections, are irrelevant to the central aim of the Bill, although not to the noble Baroness's other aims. The aim of the Bill, I repeat—it has been said again and again—is to give same-sex couples, who cannot marry and will not be able to marry, the protection of their relationship and the rights and responsibilities that will result from registration. It is a long-overdue measure of simple justice.
	There is a legitimate case for extending some degree of relief from inheritance tax to family members or non-family carers who shared a home with the deceased, but that is a matter for a future Finance Bill, not for this Bill. The sole purpose of this Bill is to give legal recognition to same-sex unions. Relief from inheritance tax on property which passes to a surviving partner is a consequence and not a purpose of the Bill. Indeed, as has been said, the Bill does not provide relief from inheritance tax at all. The Government have said that that will have to be dealt with by the next Finance Bill.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, as the noble Lord has underlined to the House, the financial questions are not part of the Bill. But they are proving a difficulty which could be removed if the noble Baroness—and, I hope, the noble Lord—will agree that there should be no movement on the tax aspects which would apply to civil partners unless the injustice to those other groups of people, of whom we have all spoken, is remedied at the same time.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I shall give the noble Lord two answers. I was about to give one, but I shall give the other at the same time. The first answer is that it is not the business of this House to be dealing with tax matters at all—certainly not at this stage and in this way.
	The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, heard the second answer again and again when we were in the Moses Room. He said that the Bill was about money and nothing else. That is quite wrong and devalues the whole purpose of the Bill by a kind of obsessive materialism. I do not say that tax is not important to those who have to pay it, but it is quite wrong to devalue the Bill in that way.
	The Constitutional Court of South Africa noted that same-sex partners were as capable as heterosexual spouses,
	"of forming intimate, permanent, committed, monogamous, loyal and enduring relationships; of furnishing emotional and spiritual support; and of providing physical care, financial support and assistance in running the common household".
	That great court also rightly observed that the message of the denial of equal rights to same-sex as to opposite-sex partners is that,
	"gays and lesbians lack the inherent humanity to have their families . . . respected or protected. It serves in addition to perpetuate and reinforce existing prejudices and stereotypes".
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford has spoken eloquently and compassionately from a Christian tradition of true humanity, as one would expect. In the other place, my honourable friend Alistair Carmichael—speaking as a Christian, which I cannot—said:
	"To my mind, the fundamental factor in Christianity is love. The tremendous thing about Christian love is that it knows no discrimination. That is why, when Jesus told us in the New Testament to love our neighbour, he did not qualify that by saying that we need not love those of our neighbours who are black, gay, fat, thin, tall or short . . . That is why I feel passionately that it would be wrong for us to prolong, in the name of Christianity, the discrimination and disadvantage that some people suffer".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/04; col. 805.]
	The amendments would prolong, unintentionally perhaps, the discrimination and disadvantage suffered by gay and lesbian couples. We very much hope that they will be withdrawn or, if not withdrawn, firmly rejected.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I remind the House that there is a free vote on the Conservative Benches on the amendment.
	I believe that this will be seen as a watershed debate. The Civil Partnership Bill is to be welcomed. It is a redress to an injustice behind which, only a year or two ago, few would have expected Parliament to unite as we have. We have the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to thank for his original Bill, which led the Government to this point today.
	I believe that this amendment marks an equally striking turning point. Before my noble friend Lady O'Cathain took it up, the cause of siblings and family carers was an outstanding cause. After the stand that she has taken, the eloquence with which she has spoken, the heart-rending cases that she has, over the weeks, brought to our attention, the strong support she won in this House at an earlier stage and the many letters that I and so many Peers have received, I do not think that any halfway decent government could ever again sweep aside the cry for justice from siblings and family carers faced with being hounded from their home by the taxman on the death of their nearest and dearest.
	It is one of the glories of this House—and long may it stay that way—that a Member can find an injustice and put it before the country in a way that cannot be ignored. I think of the noble Lords, Lord Ashley of Stoke and Lord Morris of Manchester, with regard to disabled people. I think of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, with regard to war pensions. I couple with them my noble friend and her campaign for siblings and close family carers. Her stand will, I am certain, equally come to be seen as a stand for justice.
	My noble friend has suffered many personal attacks before and since the Committee stage in your Lordships' House, the stereotyping of her views—even threats to her livelihood. Those attacks demean those who made them. My noble friend's whole life shows her commitment to public service and her concern for others. She is a person of courage, a person of integrity. I hope that when the Minister replies, she will condemn any threat to any Member of this House on the basis of what he or she has done or said in this House. We must not permit the emergence of a new intolerance in this country.
	In the summer, the Government reacted in a negative way to my noble friend's amendment. No one who was in the House that day will forget how foolish Ministers made themselves look. They picked up their ball and they stopped playing. But I hope we have moved on from that. Since then, many of those who have campaigned for an end to injustice for gay couples have come out in support of my noble friend's campaign. I was confident that they would, for those who have suffered injustice know that you do not end one injustice by creating another.
	I hope that the Government have rethought their position. The House will listen very carefully to what the Minister says, for her response—every little word, every conditional clause—will have been discussed and agreed at the highest level. So I ask her: will the Government address the injustice felt by siblings and family carers—yes or no? If not, why not? If yes, how and when?
	The group, as defined in my noble friend's amendment, is not large—family members over 30 who have lived together for 12 years or more as co-dependants. We all know some of them, and we know them to be among the most deserving and admirable members of our society. It is clear beyond doubt that the Government must act. Yet a quite extraordinary Home Office paper, circulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, says that if siblings or family carers were given the chance of a registration scheme, then there would,
	"be a potential for abuse, with one relative putting pressure on another, perhaps a vulnerable or financially dependent one, to register their relationship".
	That does not begin to be a serious argument. If it were, it would be an argument against civil partnerships of any form. It wholly ignores the everyday pressures that flow from the incidence of inheritance tax and the natural wish to protect and pass on a family home and family possessions. My noble friend's scheme, so far from creating pressure, would relieve it.
	The Government also say that it would be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights to protect some family members in this way but not others. If true, that is as good an argument as I have ever heard against the European Convention on Human Rights. Surely the Government, with their phalanxes of human rights lawyers falling out of every cupboard, have the ingenuity to surmount that. But do they have the will, my Lords? Do they have the will?
	The Home Office paper is a tissue of pretext not to do something. What the House asked for this summer was for something to be done for these deserving people. The paper says that there may be a time and a place for proper discussion and even future reform of family law. As my noble friend said, that hardly sounds a ringing commitment. I hope for rather more from the Minister today.
	Let me make it clear on behalf of my party that we fully accept the powerful case my noble friend has made. But we do not think that this Bill is the right vehicle in which to achieve it. Indeed, I think it is unfortunate that my noble friend's amendment would make the commencement of the Civil Partnership Act dependent on the prior implementation of a scheme for siblings and carers. In my view, both causes should be advanced in parallel. For that reason, passionately as I agree with her on the cause, I will not be able to support my noble friend if she presses her amendment, as it would delay introduction of civil partnerships. But the cause she presses is wholly compelling, in my view, and we on this side will fight to make it a reality. That is why, when the next Finance Bill is presented to Parliament, my friends in another place will lay amendments to correct this injustice.
	If the Government cannot accept the amendment, when we return to office, we will act to address this issue. Will the noble Baroness be able to give the House a similar assurance? If not, then surely she must explain why the Government are not prepared to act to help these people. Tens of thousands of men and women in every part of this country today will be waiting to know the reason why. When the time comes for another government to act, they will owe a deep debt of gratitude to this House and to my noble friend Lady O'Cathain.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have had a very full and, on this occasion, temperate debate. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, knows well that I, too, hold her in the highest regard. I—without reservation, as I made clear in my opening remarks—dissociate myself and the Government entirely from anyone who sought improperly to put pressure on any Member of this House. I hope that I made that clear at the beginning.
	We have heard a lot this evening about the financial consequences of the provisions, which I construe as being the benefits that are seen by some to flow from them. We have, however, heard very little of the responsibilities. The registration of these relationships does not simply bring benefit; it also brings responsibilities for the partner—to finance, to love, to support, to help and to provide. Those responsibilities are weighty.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford is absolutely right when he says that there is a clear distinction between these provisions and those of marriage. Marriage is not affected in any way by the Bill. The right reverend Prelate was absolutely right when he said that we have to look at the clarity of principle that the Bill seeks to address. If we cannot right all the wrongs, should we not seek to right those wrongs which we can? That is what this Bill seeks to do.
	The ills that have flown from the problem, which have improperly impinged on the lives of people of the same sex who wish to have a long-term relationship, have been long standing. To ask for that relief to be postponed because we cannot deal with each and every one of the remaining issues in dispute would be to perpetuate injustice. To that extent, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, was absolutely right. That was echoed by a number of other noble Lords around this Chamber, including the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley.
	In my opening address, I sought to deal with the issues of inheritance tax and the provisions that we already have are extensive. The noble Baroness said that all would be left deprived. However, a relatively privileged few are able to take advantage of assets in excess of £500,000, so there is a cushion for those who do have difficulty.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made clear, this issue is one that we as legislators must look at responsibly. She was right when she asked whether it would be responsible to legislate in such haste. In my opening remarks and in the debates that we have had on this Bill I have tried to outline the plethora of complexities that pertain in relation to individual sets of relationships and how the ramifications of those relationships should be examined. When we are looking at a couple who are unrelated to each other joining in harmony and making a life together, that is one set of relationships. The relationship between brother and sister or father and daughter—all those who are referred to in the noble Baroness's amendment—are also complex. I know that by tabling this amendment, the noble Baroness is not saying that those are the only people who need to have their rights addressed. I concur with her on that, but not in this Bill.
	I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that of course care homes are an issue of future importance. The noble Lord will know well the complexity of how we have to order rights and responsibilities. Those are issues with which the noble Lord has wrestled for more than 20 years. They are complex and each time those individual Bills have come before this House, they have taken time and attention and care. This House and the other place have spent appropriate time on them. We cannot do it all: we have to do that which we can.
	I hear the passion of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who raised the delicate issue of the difficulties of those who may have been injured. He described his personal circumstances and none of us could have remained untouched by that. However, when it comes to the noble Lord's suggestion that we should somehow postpone the legislation, I recognise the comments that have been made about the noble Lord in another place. His honourable friend John Bercow said of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that,
	"cleverly conceived amendments of this kind would . . . cause the Government no end of trouble, and that Gordon's sums would be thrown into disarray, providing the opportunity for a great deal of fun".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D; 19/10/04; col: 17.]
	That may have been the sentiment, but that is not how it will feel to those who have been deprived of the rights.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, there is nothing wrong with giving the Chancellor a little difficulty with his sums if he does not have enough already. However, the Minister said earlier that there was a clear distinction between civil partnership as envisaged in this Bill and civil marriage. Will she now elucidate what that difference is?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, one of the major differences is, of course, consummation. For a marriage to be valid, it has to be consummated by one man and one woman and there is a great deal of jurisprudence which tells one exactly what consummation amounts to—partial or impartial, penetration or no penetration. If the noble Lord wishes me to give a dissertation on family law, of course I would be more than happy to do so although it will take some time.
	There is no provision for consummation in the Civil Partnership Bill. We do not look at the nature of the sexual relationship that enters into the civil partnership. It is totally different in nature. I thought that that was fully and properly understood.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister again. I do not want to prolong this into a family court, but if there is no question in a civil partnership of consummation, why cannot the measure be extended to people who have a close family relationship—two homosexual brothers, for example?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that would trespass on the bounds of consanguinity. For several years in this country we have recognised that it is improper for those who are related to one another to enter into a relationship that is similar to that of marriage. That is something on which we do not trespass. The right reverend Prelates have made plain that they rightly wish to preserve the distinction between marriage and registered relationships. We have listened to that comprehensively. We think that the right reverend Prelates are right: I do not know whether the noble Lord would disagree.
	We have made plain that those who enter into a same-sex relationship should have an opportunity to have their relationship recognised. I also know that the noble Lord's honourable friend, said of him that:
	"We all know the ingeniousness and cheekiness of my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Tebbit of Chingford. When one is on his side, he is magnificent to watch. We all enjoy his actions and egg him on, and he is better at it than anybody else".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D; 19/10/04; cols. 17–18.]
	I understand that that may be the function that the noble Lord seeks to play in this debate, but on this occasion it is not fun.
	This is very serious indeed. It is serious because the implications for the individuals who will suffer will be serious.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I break the silence that I have kept for 10 months in this House, but I must tell the Minister that her cheap jibe against my noble friend, who made all his comments in the utmost seriousness, deserves an apology.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I regret that the noble Baroness feels that she has to rise to her feet because we all welcome very much her return to this House and we have missed hearing her voice. However, I have to deal with matters from this Bench as they arise. The noble Lord made a number of comments with which I have now dealt. I regret that the noble Baroness feels that the remarks were cheap. I am afraid that that is not a view which I necessarily share. However, if any inappropriate connotation was put on them that was not my intent.
	To consider our present position, this House has spoken and the general nature of the House seems to be that we support the need for having these rights addressed, but it is not for this Bill. The amendments to which the noble Baroness referred are for another day. I have tried to make absolutely clear the way in which the Government have used every opportunity to address these issues. I have also made clear that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is reviewing the Law Commission's consultation in relation to tenure, which will look at the issues of carers and others and how they will be affected by the legislation.
	I remind the House that when this matter first came before your Lordships, not least in the form of the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, we promised that we would look at this issue and look at it energetically. We have honoured that commitment. Not only do we commend the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for bringing it forward, but I hope he will feel that we on this side can also be commended for honouring our responsibilities. When we say that these issues have been validly raised, that we understand the import of them and that they will be examined, I hope that the noble Lords opposite will be able to take that in the same spirit.
	The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has raised an important issue. She has been a standard bearer for and has shone a light on things that needed to be made light. Knowing her, I know that she will not cease in her campaign on the issues; they will doubtless be brought before this House, and we will deal with them. I know how the House operates, and when it makes a commitment on something, it tends to follow through on that. These matters would come forward, whether the Government wanted them to or no—and we want them to.
	The amendment would have the effect of a wrecking amendment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said. I know that that is not what the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, wants, but we cannot postpone justice for one group just because we cannot derive perfection for everyone else. This is a very important moment for this House, because we must act responsibly in discharging our duties as legislators. We cannot add an additional provision to a Bill which is not made for its carriage; we have to find a different vehicle. The amendment may be an important one, but not for this Bill and not for this day.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I shall speak briefly, partly because my voice is about to give out.
	This has been a very interesting and thoughtful debate, and I want to thank every person who has contributed. Some feel as strongly as I do about the injustice; some feel strongly—rightly—that the Bill must go through. But the object of the Bill, as the Minister said, is to right all the wrongs. Even my amendment does not do that, and nor could it. The problem with the Bill is that it creates a new wrong, and my amendment does not do that—because it would not wreck the Bill.
	My amendment is new. In fact, as all noble Lords who took part in the debate in June will know—I see a lot of familiar faces—this new amendment was distilled from that amendment. That amendment was voted on with a free vote only on our side of the House; there was a three-line Whip for the Government and Liberal Democrat Members, but it was still carried in this House.
	That amendment was complex and complicated. I listened and mulled over it and introduced this amendment today, at the first opportunity when the Bill came back from the Commons. It is limited to two, but it could be limited to more; I wanted simply to bring out the parallel and put some parameters on it. The provision in the amendment is limited to 12 years; someone has said that is too long, but it could be seven years—it could be anything. The reason why I chose 12 years was that it reflected the long-term commitment of those family members to each other, not just a passing fancy. Above all, my amendment proposes a voluntary scheme. People who are in a caring, sustaining, loving, co-dependent relationship with family members do not have to register, because the proposal is voluntary.
	I am sorry, but we have had no commitment to, or timetable for, action. Sadly, I have absolutely no confidence that anything will happen. In order to tell the other place just how we really feel—and how I really feel—about this injustice, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 136; Not-Contents, 251.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

2 Clause 2, page 2, line 1, leave out Clause 2
	3 Clause 4, page 2, line 38, leave out "Subject to subsection (2),"
	4 Page 3, line 5, leave out subsection (2)

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, to which I have spoken with Amendment No. 1.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

5 Clause 6, page 3, line 29, leave out from "subject" to end of line 33 and insert "to—
	(a) section 21 (modified procedures for certain non-residents);
	(b) Schedule 4 (former spouses one of whom has changed sex)."
	6 Page 3, line 39, at end insert—
	"( ) This section is also subject to section (Immigration control and formation of civil partnerships) and Schedule (Immigration control and formation of civil partnerships) (immigration control and formation of civil partnerships)."
	7 Clause 7, page 4, line 7, leave out from "means" to end of line 9 and insert "premises which—
	(a) are used solely or mainly for religious purposes, or
	(b) have been so used and have not subsequently been used solely or mainly for other purposes."
	8 Clause 11, page 6, line 3, at end insert—
	"( ) by any registration authority in whose area the proposed civil partner of the person giving the notice has resided during the period of 7 days preceding the giving of that notice,"
	9 Clause 15, page 7, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
	"(2) Regulations may make provision as to the contents of a civil partnership schedule."
	10 Clause 21, page 10, line 39, at end insert "and, where the standard procedure is used in the first and second cases, is the period of 3 months beginning with that day"
	11 Clause 26, page 12, line 18, leave out from "General," to end of line 20 and insert—
	"( ) Regulations may (subject to subsection (4)) make provision as to the contents of a licence under this section."
	12 Clause 35, page 16, line 3, leave out "registration services provided" and insert "services provided in connection with civil partnerships"
	13 After Clause 35, insert the following new Clause—
	"Power to assimilate provisions relating to civil registration
	(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer may by order make—
	(a) such amendments of this Act as appear to him appropriate for the purpose of assimilating any provision connected with the formation or recording of civil partnerships in England and Wales to any provision made (whether or not under an order under section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 (c. 6)) in relation to civil marriage in England and Wales, and
	(b) such amendments of other enactments and of subordinate legislation as appear to him appropriate in consequence of any amendments made under paragraph (a).
	(2) "Civil marriage" means marriage solemnised otherwise than according to the rites of the Church of England or any other religious usages.
	(3) "Amendment" includes repeal or revocation.
	(4) "Subordinate legislation" has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30)."
	14 Clause 36, page 16, line 20, at end insert— "( ) for the issue by registration authorities or the Registrar General of certified copies of entries in the register and for such copies to be received in evidence."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 14. All of these amendments were approved wholly in the other place. Unless noble Lords wish me to outline any of the provisions, I shall simply move them.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 14.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

15 Page 16, line 21, leave out paragraph (f)
	16 Page 16, line 25, leave out subsection (4)
	17 Page 16, line 33, leave out "subsection (4)" and insert "section (Power to assimilate provisions relating to civil registration)"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 to 17, to which I have referred in speaking to Amendments Nos. 1 and 5.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 to 17.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

18 Clause 54, page 26, line 8, leave out "by virtue of provision made under section 149," and insert "under section 169,"
	19 Page 26, line 10, leave out from "if" to end and insert "the circumstances fall within any paragraph of section 50(1)"
	20 Page 26, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (i)
	21 Page 26, line 21, after "(2)(a)" insert "or (b)"
	22 Page 26, line 26, leave out from first "voidable" to end of line 31 and insert "if—
	(i) the appropriate part of the United Kingdom is England and Wales or Northern Ireland and the circumstances fall within any paragraph of section 50(1), or
	(ii) the appropriate part of the United Kingdom is Scotland and the circumstances fall within section 50(1)(d).
	(5) The appropriate part of the United Kingdom is the part by reference to which the condition in subsection (2)(b) of the relevant section is met."
	23 Page 26, line 42, after "Wales" insert "or Northern Ireland"
	24 Page 26, line 45, leave out subsections (9) and (10) and insert—
	"(8A) Section 51 applies for the purposes of— (a) subsections (1)(b), (2)(b) and (4)(b), (b) subsection (8)(a), in so far as applicable in accordance with the relevant law, and (c) subsection (8)(b) and (c).
	(8B) In subsections (8)(a) and (8A)(b) "the relevant law" means the law of the country or territory where the overseas relationship was registered (including its rules of private international law).
	(8C) For the purposes of subsections (8) and (8A)(b) and (c), references in sections 50 and 51 to the formation of the civil partnership are to be read as references to the registration of the overseas relationship."
	25 After Clause 67, insert the following new Clause—
	"Applications under section 66 by former civil partners
	(1) This section applies where a civil partnership has been dissolved or annulled.
	(2) Subject to subsection (3), an application may be made under section 66 (including that section as extended by section 67) by either former civil partner despite the dissolution or annulment (and references in those sections to a civil partner are to be read accordingly).
	(3) The application must be made within the period of 3 years beginning with the date of the dissolution or annulment."
	26 Clause 78, page 35, line 39, at end insert—
	"( ) In section 21 (placement orders), in subsection (4)(c), after "child marries" insert ", forms a civil partnership"."
	27 Clause 82, page 37, line 37, at end insert—
	"( ) In paragraph (b)(iii) of section 1(3), after "wife" insert "or civil partner"."
	28 Page 38, line 10, at end insert—
	"( ) In section 3 (assessment of damages), in subsection (4), after "wife" insert "or civil partner"."
	29 After Clause 82, insert the following new Clause—
	"Evidence
	(1) Any enactment or rule of law relating to the giving of evidence by a spouse applies in relation to a civil partner as it applies in relation to the spouse.
	(2) Subsection (1) is subject to any specific amendment made by or under this Act which relates to the giving of evidence by a civil partner.
	(3) For the avoidance of doubt, in any such amendment, references to a person's civil partner do not include a former civil partner.
	(4) References in subsections (1) and (2) to giving evidence are to giving evidence in any way (whether by supplying information, making discovery, producing documents or otherwise).
	(5) Any rule of law— (a) which is preserved by section 7(3) of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 (c. 38) or section 118(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), and (b) under which in any proceedings evidence of reputation or family tradition is admissible for the purpose of proving or disproving the existence of a marriage,
	is to be treated as applying in an equivalent way for the purpose of proving or disproving the existence of a civil partnership."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 18 to 29.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 18 to 29.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

30 Clause 84, page 38, line 30, leave out "Subject to subsection (2),"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30, which has been referred to with Amendment No. 1.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

31 Page 38, line 36, leave out "of understanding the nature of civil partnership" and insert "of—
	(i) understanding the nature of civil partnership, or
	(ii) validly consenting to its formation"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

32 Page 38, line 37, leave out subsection (2)
	33 Page 39, line 42, leave out "following modifications" and insert "modifications specified in subsections (7) and (8)"
	34 Page 39, line 45, leave out "those provisions" and insert "subsection (5) or those paragraphs"
	35 Page 40, line 15, at end insert—
	"( ) For the purposes of this section, a degree of relationship specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 11 exists whether it is of the full blood or the half blood.
	( ) Amend section 41(1) of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 (c. 28) (application to determination of forbidden degrees of provisions of that Act relating to the status conferred by adoption) as follows— (a) after first "marriage" insert ", to the eligibility of persons to register as civil partners of each other", and (b) for "and incest" substitute ", to such eligibility and to incest"."
	36 Clause 90, page 42, line 6, leave out "of understanding the nature of civil partnership" and insert "of—
	(a) understanding the nature of civil partnership, or
	(b) validly consenting to its formation"
	37 Clause 91, page 42, line 42, at end insert—
	"( ) The place of registration may, if the approval of the Registrar General is obtained, be outwith the district of the authorised registrar carrying out the registration."
	38 Page 42, line 43, leave out from "be" to end of line 45 and insert "in religious premises, that is to say in premises which—
	(a) are used solely or mainly for religious purposes, or
	(b) have been so used and have not subsequently been used solely or mainly for other purposes."
	39 Page 43, line 2, leave out "; and "known" means known to the local registration authority"
	40 After Clause 117, insert the following new Clause—
	"Separation
	(1) An action for the separation of the civil partners in a civil partnership may be brought in the Court of Session or in the sheriff court.
	(2) In such an action the court may grant decree if satisfied that the circumstances set out in any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 115(3) are established."
	41 Clause 120, page 62, line 8, leave out from "other" to end of line 9 and insert ", the civil partnership is void if, and only if—
	(a) they were not eligible to do so, or
	(b) though they were so eligible, either of them did not validly consent to its formation."
	42 Clause 121, page 62, line 16, leave out "50" and insert "50(1)(a), (b), (c) or (e)"
	43 Page 62, line 19, leave out "by virtue of provision made under section 149," and insert "under section 169,"
	44 Page 62, line 21, leave out "by virtue of such provision" and insert "under section 170(1)(a), (b), (c) or (e)"
	45 Page 62, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (i)
	46 Page 62, line 32, after "(2)(a)" insert "or (b)"
	47 Page 62, line 37, leave out from first "voidable" to end of line 42 and insert "if—
	(i) the appropriate part of the United Kingdom is England and Wales and the circumstances fall within section 50(1)(a), (b), (c) or (e), or
	(ii) the appropriate part of the United Kingdom is Northern Ireland and the circumstances fall within section 170(1)(a), (b), (c) or (e).
	(5) The appropriate part of the United Kingdom is the part by reference to which the condition in subsection (2)(b) of the relevant section is met."
	48 Page 63, line 7, leave out from "law," to end of line 15 and insert— "(b) where either of the parties was domiciled in England and Wales at the time when the overseas relationship was registered, the circumstances fall within section 50(1)(a), (b), (c) or (e), or (c) where either of the parties was domiciled in Northern Ireland at the time when the overseas relationship was registered, the circumstances fall within section 170(1)(a), (b), (c) or (e).
	(8A) Section 51 or (as the case may be) section 171 applies for the purposes of— (a) subsections (1)(b), (2)(b) and (4)(b), (b) subsection (8)(a), in so far as applicable in accordance with the relevant law, and (c) subsection (8)(b) and (c).
	(8B) In subsections (8)(a) and (8A)(b) "the relevant law" means the law of the country or territory where the overseas relationship was registered (including its rules of private international law).
	(8C) For the purposes of subsections (8) and (8A)(b) and (c), references in sections 50 and 51 or (as the case may be) sections 170 and 171 to the formation of the civil partnership are to be read as references to the registration of the overseas relationship."
	49 Clause 123, page 63, line 31, leave out subsection (3)
	50 After Clause 127, insert the following new Clause—
	"Succession: legal rights arising by virtue of civil partnership
	(1) Where a person dies survived by a civil partner then, unless the circumstance is as mentioned in subsection (2), the civil partner has right to half of the moveable net estate belonging to the deceased at the time of death.
	(2) That circumstance is that the person is also survived by issue, in which case the civil partner has right to a third of that moveable net estate and those issue have right to another third of it.
	(3) In this section—
	"issue" means issue however remote, and
	"net estate" has the meaning given by section 36(1) (interpretation) of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 (c. 41).
	(4) Every testamentary disposition executed after the commencement of this section by which provision is made in favour of the civil partner of the testator and which does not contain a declaration to the effect that the provision so made is in full and final satisfaction of the right to any share in the testator's estate to which the civil partner is entitled by virtue of subsection (1) or (2), has effect (unless the disposition contains an express provision to the contrary) as if it contained such a declaration.
	(5) In section 36(1) of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 (c. 41), in the definition of "legal rights", for "and legitim" substitute "legitim and rights under section (Succession: legal rights arising by virtue of civil partnership) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004"."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 32 to 50, to which I have referred in Amendments Nos. 1, 5, 18 and 31.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 32 to 50.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

51 Clause 133, page 67, line 22, leave out "civil partnership"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 51.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 51.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

52 Clause 134, page 67, line 25, leave out "Subject to subsection (2),"
	53 Page 67, line 33, leave out subsection (2)
	54 Clause 155, page 75, line 29, leave out subsection (2)
	55 After Clause 172, insert the following new Clause—
	"Validity of civil partnerships registered outside Northern Ireland
	(1) Where two people register as civil partners of each other in England or Wales, the civil partnership is— (a) void, if it would be void in England and Wales under section 49, and (b) voidable, if the circumstances fall within any paragraph of section 170(1).
	(2) Where two people register as civil partners of each other in Scotland, the civil partnership is— (a) void, if it would be void in Scotland under section 120, and (b) voidable, if the circumstances fall within section 170(1)(d).
	(3) Subsection (4) applies where two people register as civil partners of each other under an Order in Council under— (a) section 202 (registration at British consulates etc.), or (b) section 203 (registration by armed forces personnel),
	("the relevant section").
	(4) The civil partnership is— (a) void, if—
	(i) the condition in subsection (2)(a) or (b) of the relevant section is not met, or
	(ii) a requirement prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph by an Order in Council under the relevant section is not complied with, and (b) voidable, if—
	(i) the appropriate part of the United Kingdom is Northern Ireland or England and Wales and the circumstances fall within any paragraph of section 170(1), or
	(ii) the appropriate part of the United Kingdom is Scotland and the circumstances fall within section 170(1)(d).
	(5) The appropriate part of the United Kingdom is the part by reference to which the condition in subsection (2)(b) of the relevant section is met.
	(6) Subsections (7) and (8) apply where two people have registered an apparent or alleged overseas relationship.
	(7) The civil partnership is void if— (a) the relationship is not an overseas relationship, or (b) (even though the relationship is an overseas relationship) the parties are not treated under Chapter 2 of Part 5 as having formed a civil partnership.
	(8) The civil partnership is voidable if— (a) the overseas relationship is voidable under the relevant law, (b) the circumstances fall within section 170(1)(d), or (c) where either of the parties was domiciled in Northern Ireland or England and Wales at the time when the overseas relationship was registered, the circumstances fall within section 170(1)(a), (b), (c) or (e).
	(9) Section 171 applies for the purposes of— (a) subsections (1)(b), (2)(b) and (4)(b), (b) subsection (8)(a), in so far as applicable in accordance with the relevant law, and (c) subsection (8)(b) and (c).
	(10) In subsections (8)(a) and (9)(b) "the relevant law" means the law of the country or territory where the overseas relationship was registered (including its rules of private international law).
	(11) For the purposes of subsections (8) and (9)(b) and (c), references in sections 170 and 171 to the formation of a civil partnership are to be read as references to the registration of the overseas relationship."
	56 After Clause 187, insert the following new Clause—
	"Applications under section 186 by former civil partners
	(1) Where a civil partnership has been dissolved or annulled or is void (whether or not it has been annulled), either party may make an application under section 186 (or under that section as extended by section 187) and references in those sections to a civil partner are to be read accordingly.
	(2) An application under subsection (1) must— (a) where the civil partnership has been dissolved or annulled, be made within the period of 3 years beginning with the date of the dissolution or annulment, and (b) where a civil partnership is void but has not been annulled and the parties have ceased to live together in the same household, be made within the period of 3 years beginning with the date on which they ceased so to live together."
	57 Clause 201, page 96, line 17, at end insert—
	"( ) In sub-paragraph (b)(iii) of Article 2(2), after "wife" insert "or civil partner"."
	58 Page 96, line 34, at end insert—
	"( ) In Article 5 (assessment of damages), in paragraph (3A), after "wife" insert "or civil partner"."
	59 After Clause 201, insert the following new Clause—
	"Evidence
	(1) Any enactment or rule of law relating to the giving of evidence by a spouse applies in relation to a civil partner as it applies in relation to the spouse.
	(2) Subsection (1) is subject to any specific amendment made by or under this Act which relates to the giving of evidence by a civil partner.
	(3) For the avoidance of doubt, in any such amendment, references to a person's civil partner do not include a former civil partner.
	(4) References in subsections (1) and (2) to giving evidence are to giving evidence in any way (whether by supplying information, making discovery, producing documents or otherwise).
	(5) Any rule of law— (a) which is preserved by Article 22(1) of the Criminal Justice (Evidence) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 (S.I. 2004/1501 (N.I. 10)), and (b) under which in any proceedings evidence of reputation or family tradition is admissible for the purpose of proving or disproving the existence of a marriage,
	is to be treated as applying in an equivalent way for the purpose of proving or disproving the existence of a civil partnership."
	60 Insert the following new Clause—
	"Restriction on publicity of reports of proceedings
	Section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes (Reports) Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 (c. 29 (N.I.)) (restriction on publication of reports of proceedings) shall extend to proceedings— (c) for the dissolution or annulment of a civil partnership or for the legal separation of civil partners, (d) under section 176, (e) under Part 7 of Schedule 16, or (f) under Part 9 of Schedule 16 in relation to an order under Part 7 of that Schedule."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 52 to 60, to which I referred in Amendments Nos. 1, 5, 18 and 51.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 52 to 60.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

61 Clause 204, page 98, line 36, after "Act)" insert "with a responsible authority"
	62 Clause 206, page 99, line 24, at end insert "and"
	63 Page 99, line 27, leave out from "married" to end of line 30
	64 Clause 207, page 99, line 43, at end insert—
	"(3A) But if— (a) before this section comes into force, a dissolution or annulment of the overseas relationship was obtained outside the United Kingdom, and (b) the dissolution or annulment would be recognised under Chapter 3 if the overseas relationship had been treated as a civil partnership at the time of the dissolution or annulment,
	subsection (3) does not apply and subsections (1) and (2) have effect subject to subsection (3B).
	(3B) The overseas relationship is not to be treated as having been a civil partnership for the purposes of any provisions except— (a) Schedules 8, 12 and 18 (financial relief in United Kingdom after dissolution or annulment obtained outside the United Kingdom); (b) such provisions as are specified (with or without modifications) in an order under section 249; (c) Chapter 3 (so far as necessary for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b))."
	65 Clause 208, page 100, line 14, leave out from "if)" to "one" in line 15 and insert ", at the time mentioned in section 207(2)—(a)"
	66 Page 100, line 25, at end insert—
	"( ) Nothing in this section prevents the exercise of any enforceable Community right."
	67 Clause 211, page 102, line 1, at end insert— "( ) The regulations may make provision under subsections (1)(b) and (2)(b) which applies even if the date of the dissolution, annulment or legal separation is earlier than the date on which this section comes into force."
	68 Clause 226, page 108, line 21, at end insert "(whether before or after this section comes into force)"
	69 Clause 229, page 110, line 13, at end insert—"( ) applying sections 227 and 228 and subsection (1) with modifications in relation to any country whose territories have different systems of law in force in matters of dissolution, annulment or legal separation; ( ) applying sections 227 and 228 with modifications in relation to—
	(i) an overseas dissolution, annulment or legal separation in the case of an overseas relationship (or an apparent or alleged overseas relationship);
	(ii) any case where a civil partner is domiciled in a country or territory whose law does not recognise legal relationships between two people of the same sex;"
	70 Page 110, line 14, leave out "annulment" and insert "dissolution, annulment or legal separation"
	71 Page 110, line 17, after "country" insert "or territory"
	72 Page 110, line 18, after "country" insert "or territory"
	73 Page 110, line 20, after "country" insert "or territory"
	74 Page 110, line 21, leave out paragraph (d)

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 to 74.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 to 74.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

75 Before Clause 241, insert the following new Clause—
	"Immigration control and formation of civil partnerships
	Schedule (Immigration control and formation of civil partnerships) contains provisions relating to the formation of civil partnerships in the United Kingdom by persons subject to immigration control."
	76 Insert the following new Clause—
	"Gender recognition where applicant a civil partner
	(1) Amend the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (c. 7) as follows.
	(2) In—
	(a) section 3 (evidence), in subsection (6)(a), and
	(b) section 4 (successful applications), in subsections (2) and (3),
	after "is married" insert "or a civil partner".
	(3) In section 5 (subsequent issue of full certificates)—
	(a) in subsection (2), after "is again married" insert "or is a civil partner",
	(b) in subsection (6)(a), for "is not married" substitute "is neither married nor a civil partner", and
	(c) for the heading substitute "Issue of full certificates where applicant has been married".
	(4) After section 5 insert—
	"5A Issue of full certificates where applicant has been a civil partner
	(1) A court which—
	(a) makes final a nullity order made on the ground that an interim gender recognition certificate has been issued to a civil partner, or
	(b) (in Scotland) grants a decree of dissolution on that ground,
	must, on doing so, issue a full gender recognition certificate to that civil partner and send a copy to the Secretary of State.
	(2) If an interim gender recognition certificate has been issued to a person and either—
	(a) the person's civil partnership is dissolved or annulled (otherwise than on the ground mentioned in subsection (1)) in proceedings instituted during the period of six months beginning with the day on which it was issued, or
	(b) the person's civil partner dies within that period,
	the person may make an application for a full gender recognition certificate at any time within the period specified in subsection (3) (unless the person is again a civil partner or is married).
	(3) That period is the period of six months beginning with the day on which the civil partnership is dissolved or annulled or the death occurs.
	(4) An application under subsection (2) must include evidence of the dissolution or annulment of the civil partnership and the date on which proceedings for it were instituted, or of the death of the civil partner and the date on which it occurred.
	(5) An application under subsection (2) is to be determined by a Gender Recognition Panel.
	(6) The Panel—
	(a) must grant the application if satisfied that the applicant is neither a civil partner nor married, and
	(b) otherwise must reject it.
	(7) If the Panel grants the application it must issue a full gender recognition certificate to the applicant."
	(5) In—
	(a) section 7 (applications: supplementary), in subsection (1),
	(b) section 8 (appeals etc.), in subsections (1) and (5), and
	(c) section 22 (prohibition on disclosure of information), in subsection (2)(a),
	after "5(2)" insert ", 5A(2)".
	(6) In section 21 (foreign gender change and marriage), in subsection (4), after "entered into a later (valid) marriage" insert "or civil partnership".
	(7) In section 25 (interpretation), in the definition of "full gender recognition certificate" and "interim gender recognition certificate", for "or 5" substitute ", 5 or 5A".
	(8) In Schedule 1 (Gender Recognition Panels), in paragraph 5, after "5(2)" insert ", 5A(2)".
	(9) In Schedule 3 (registration), in paragraphs 9(1), 19(1) and 29(1), for "or 5(2)" substitute ", 5(2) or 5A(2)"."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 en bloc, which have been referred to with Amendments Nos. 5 and 18.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 75 and 76.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

77 Clause 245, page 119, line 41, at end insert ", and
	(b) may be made with a view to ensuring that pensions, allowances or gratuities take account of rights which accrued, service which occurred or any other circumstances which existed before the passing of this Act."
	78 Page 120, line 10, leave out from "(1)" to "may" in line 14
	79 Page 120, line 24, leave out subsections (11) and (12)

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 77 to 79 en bloc.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 77 to 79.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

80 Clause 250, page 123, line 16, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
	"(1) Subsection (2) applies where any person, by Order in Council or regulations under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 (c. 68) (general implementation of Treaties)—
	(a) is making provision for the purpose of implementing, or for a purpose concerning, a Community obligation of the United Kingdom which relates to persons who are or have been parties to a marriage, or
	(b) has made such provision and it has not been revoked.
	(2) The appropriate person may by Order in Council or (as the case may be) by regulations make provision in relation to persons who are or have been civil partners in a civil partnership that is the same or similar to the provision referred to in subsection (1)."
	81 Page 123, line 27, leave out subsections (4) to (7) and insert—
	"(4) "The appropriate person" means—
	(a) if subsection (1)(a) applies, the person making the provision referred to there;
	(b) if subsection (1)(b) applies, any person who would have power to make the provision referred to there if it were being made at the time of the exercise of the power under subsection (2).
	(5) The following provisions apply in relation to the power conferred by subsection (2) to make an Order in Council or regulations as they apply in relation to the power conferred by section 2(2) of the 1972 Act to make an Order in Council or regulations—
	(a) paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the 1972 Act (procedure etc. in relation to making of Orders in Council and regulations: general);
	(b) paragraph 15(3)(c) of Schedule 8 to the Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46) (modifications of paragraph 2 in relation to Scottish Ministers and to Orders in Council made on the recommendation of the First Minister);
	(c) paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the 1972 Act (modifications of paragraph 2 in relation to Northern Ireland departments etc.) and the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)) (treating the power conferred by subsection (2) as conferred by an Act passed before 1st January 1974 for the purposes of the application of that Order);
	(d) section 29(3) of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38) (modifications of paragraph 2 in relation to the National Assembly for Wales)."
	82 Clause 251, page 124, line 2, at end insert—
	"(2A) Schedule (Minor and consequential amendments: Northern Ireland) contains minor and consequential amendments relating to Northern Ireland."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 80 to 82 en bloc.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 80 to 82.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

83 Clause 252, page 124, line 5, after "Wales)," insert "excluding section (Power to assimilate provisions relating to civil registration) but"
	84 Page 124, line 21, at end insert—
	"( ) Schedule (Minor and consequential amendments: Northern Ireland) extends to Northern Ireland only."
	85 Clause 253, page 124, line 26, leave out "Parts 1 and 2, including Schedules 2 to 10, come" and insert "Part 1 comes into force in accordance with provision made by order by the Secretary of State, after consulting the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Finance and Personnel.
	( ) Part 2, including Schedules 2 to 10, comes"
	86 Page 124, line 31, leave out "and 14" and insert "to 20"
	87 Page 125, line 10, after "sections" insert "(Immigration control and formation of civil partnerships),"
	88 Page 125, line 10, after "Schedules" insert "(Immigration control and formation of civil partnerships),"
	89 Page 125, line 11, at end insert—
	"( ) section (Gender recognition where applicant a civil partner) comes into force in accordance with provision made by order by the Secretary of State, after consulting the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Finance and Personnel,"
	90 Page 125, line 12, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 15 and insert—
	"(b) section 242 comes into force in accordance with provision made by the Department of Finance and Personnel, after consulting the Secretary of State,
	(c) subject to paragraph (d), section 244(1) and Schedule 24 come into force in accordance with provision made by order by the Secretary of State,
	(d) the provisions of Schedule 24 listed in subsection (7A), and section 244(1) so far as relating to those provisions, come into force in accordance with provision made by the Department of Finance and Personnel, after consulting the Secretary of State, and
	(e) sections 244(2) to (6)"
	91 Page 125, line 16, at end insert—
	"(7A) The provisions are—
	(a) Part 2;
	(b) in Part 5, paragraphs 62 to 80, 81, 83 to 92 and 95 to 97;
	(c) Part 6;
	(d) Parts 9 and 10;
	(e) Part 13."
	92 Page 125, line 21, after "Parliament" insert "or any provision which extends to Northern Ireland only"
	93 Page 125, line 23, leave out "and"
	94 Page 125, line 27, at end insert ", and
	( ) section 251(2A) and Schedule (Minor and consequential amendments: Northern Ireland) and, so far as relating to any provision which extends to Northern Ireland only, section 251(3) and Schedule 29 come into force in accordance with provision made by order by the Department of Finance and Personnel, after consulting the Secretary of State."
	95 Clause 254, page 125, line 32, leave out subsection (2)
	96 Schedule 1, leave out Schedule 1
	97 Schedule 4, page 136, line 24, leave out from first "apply" to end of line 25 and insert "(in place of section 21) in the following three cases"
	98 Page 137, line 9, leave out from "is" to end of line 10 and insert "the period of one month beginning with the day on which B's notice is given;
	( ) section 32 applies as if in subsections (1)(a) and (2)(c) for "each notice" there were substituted "B's notice"."
	99 Schedule 5, page 140, line 6, at end insert—
	"( ) In subsection (1)(ba) (application may be made by person living as husband or wife of the deceased), after "subsection (1A)" insert "or (1B)"."
	100 Page 140, line 8, at end insert—
	"( ) After subsection (1A) insert—
	"(1B) This subsection applies to a person if for the whole of the period of two years ending immediately before the date when the deceased died the person was living—
	(a) in the same household as the deceased, and
	(b) as the civil partner of the deceased.""
	101 Page 141, line 4, at end insert—
	"In section 3(2A) (application by person living as husband or wife of deceased: matters to which court is to have regard), in paragraph (a), after "wife" insert "or civil partner"."
	102 Schedule 6, page 156, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (3)
	103 Page 156, line 8, after "under" insert "paragraph 27 or"
	104 Page 156, line 18, at end insert—
	"Part 6A Pension protection fund compensation etc.
	PPF compensation to be included in matters to which court is to have regard
	29A (1) The matters to which a court is to have regard under paragraph 21(2)(a) include any PPF compensation to which a civil partner is or is likely to be entitled; and, accordingly, in relation to any PPF compensation paragraph 21(2)(a)(ii) has effect as if "in the foreseeable future" were omitted.
	(2) The matters to which a court is to have regard under paragraph 21(2)(h) include any PPF compensation which, because of the making of a dissolution or nullity order, a civil partner will lose the chance of acquiring entitlement to.
	(3) In this Part "PPF compensation" means compensation payable under—
	(a) Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Pensions Act 2004 (pension protection), or
	(b) corresponding Northern Ireland legislation.
	Assumption of responsibility by PPF Board in paragraph 25(2) cases
	29B (1) This paragraph applies to an order under Part 1 so far as it includes provision made by virtue of paragraph 25(2) which—
	(a) imposed requirements on the trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme for which the Board has assumed responsibility, and
	(b) was made before the trustees or managers received the transfer notice.
	(2) From the time the trustees or managers of the scheme receive the transfer notice, the order has effect—
	(a) except in descriptions of case prescribed by regulations, with the modifications set out in sub-paragraph (3), and
	(b) with such other modifications as may be prescribed by regulations.
	(3) The modifications are that—
	(a) references in the order to the trustees or managers of the scheme have effect as references to the Board, and
	(b) references in the order to any pension or lump sum to which the civil partner with pension rights is or may become entitled under the scheme have effect as references to any PPF compensation to which that person is or may become entitled in respect of the pension or lump sum.
	Assumption of responsibility by PPF Board in paragraph 25(5) cases
	29C (1) This paragraph applies to an order under Part 1 if—
	(a) it includes provision made by virtue of paragraph 25(5) which requires the civil partner with pension rights to exercise his right of commutation under an occupational pension scheme to any extent, and
	(b) before the requirement is complied with the Board has assumed responsibility for the scheme.
	(2) From the time the trustees or managers of the scheme receive the transfer notice, the order has effect with such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations.
	Lump sums: power to modify paragraph 26 in respect of assessment period
	29D Regulations may modify paragraph 26 in its application to an occupational pension scheme during an assessment period in relation to the scheme.
	Assumption of responsibility by the Board not to affect power of court to vary order etc.
	29E (1) This paragraph applies where the court makes, in relation to an occupational pension scheme—
	(a) a pension sharing order, or
	(b) an order including provision made by virtue of paragraph 25(2) or (5).
	(2) If the Board subsequently assumes responsibility for the scheme, that does not affect—
	(a) the powers of the court under paragraph 43 to vary or discharge the order or to suspend or revive any provision of it;
	(b) on an appeal, the powers of the appeal court to affirm, reinstate, set aside or vary the order.
	Regulations
	29F Regulations may make such consequential modifications of any provision of, or made by virtue of, this Schedule as appear to the Lord Chancellor necessary or expedient to give effect to the provisions of this Part.
	29G (1) In this Part "regulations" means regulations made by the Lord Chancellor.
	(2) A power to make regulations under this Part is exercisable by statutory instrument which is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
	Interpretation
	29H (1) In this Part—
	"assessment period" means—
	(a) an assessment period within the meaning of Part 2 of the Pensions Act 2004 (pension protection), or
	(b) an equivalent period under corresponding Northern Ireland legislation;
	"the Board" means the Board of the Pension Protection Fund;
	"the civil partner with pension rights" has the meaning given by paragraph 29(1);
	"occupational pension scheme" has the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (c. 48);
	"transfer notice" has the same meaning as in—
	(a) Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the 2004 Act, or
	(b) corresponding Northern Ireland legislation.
	(2) References in this Part to the Board assuming responsibility for a scheme are to the Board assuming responsibility for the scheme in accordance with—
	(a) Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the 2004 Act (pension protection), or
	(b) corresponding Northern Ireland legislation."
	105 Schedule 8, page 199, line 10, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
	"(4) The matters to which the court is to have regard under sub-paragraph (3)(a), so far as relating to paragraph 21(2)(a) of Schedule 6 (regard to be had to financial resources), include—
	(a) any benefits under a pension arrangement which either of the civil partners has or is likely to have, and
	(b) any PPF compensation to which a civil partner is or is likely to be entitled,
	(whether or not in the foreseeable future).
	(4A) The matters to which the court is to have regard under sub-paragraph (3)(a), so far as relating to paragraph 21(2)(h) of Schedule 6 (regard to be had to benefits that cease to be acquirable), include—
	(a) any benefits under a pension arrangement which, because of the dissolution or annulment of the civil partnership, one of the civil partners will lose the chance of acquiring, and
	(b) any PPF compensation which, because of the making of the dissolution or nullity order, a civil partner will lose the chance of acquiring entitlement to."
	106 Page 199, line 34, leave out "section" and insert "paragraph"
	107 Page 199, line 36, leave out "and"
	108 Page 199, line 39, at end insert ", and
	(c) "PPF compensation" has the same meaning as in Part 6A of Schedule 6."
	109 Page 201, line 44, at end insert—
	"( ) paragraphs 29B to 29H (orders under Part 1 relating to pensions where Board has assumed responsibility for scheme);"
	110 Schedule 9, page 217, line 18, at end insert—
	"( ) In subsection (3), for the definition of "cohabitants" substitute—
	""cohabitants" means—
	(a) a man and a woman who, although not married to each other, are living together as husband and wife, or
	(b) two people of the same sex who, although not civil partners of each other, are living together as if they were civil partners;
	and "former cohabitants" shall be construed accordingly;"."
	111 Schedule 15, page 239, line 18, at end insert—
	"( ) In paragraph (1)(ba) (application may be made by person living as husband or wife of the deceased), after "paragraph (1A)" insert "or (1B)"."
	112 Page 239, line 20, at end insert—
	"( ) After paragraph (1A) insert—
	"(1B) This paragraph applies to a person if for the whole of the period of two years ending immediately before the date when the deceased died the person was living—
	(a) in the same household as the deceased, and
	(b) as the civil partner of the deceased.""
	113 Page 240, line 5, at end insert—
	"In Article 5(2A) (application by person living as husband or wife of deceased: matters to which court is to have regard), in sub-paragraph (a), after "wife" insert "or civil partner"."
	114 Schedule 16, page 252, line 46, leave out sub-paragraph (3)
	115 Page 253, line 1, after "under" insert "paragraph 22 or"
	116 Page 253, line 4, after "under" insert "paragraph 22 or"
	117 Page 253, line 14, at end insert—
	"Part 5A Pension protection fund compensation etc.
	PPF compensation to be included in matters to which court is to have regard
	24A (1) The matters to which a court is to have regard under paragraph 16(2)(a) include any PPF compensation to which a civil partner is or is likely to be entitled; and, accordingly, in relation to any PPF compensation paragraph 16(2)(a)(ii) has effect as if "in the foreseeable future" were omitted.
	(2) The matters to which a court is to have regard under paragraph 16(2)(h) include any PPF compensation which, because of the making of a dissolution or nullity order, a civil partner will lose the chance of acquiring entitlement to.
	(3) In this Part "PPF compensation" means compensation payable under—
	(a) Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Pensions Act 2004 (pension protection), or
	(b) corresponding Northern Ireland legislation.
	Assumption of responsibility by PPF Board in paragraph 20(2) cases
	24B (1) This paragraph applies to an order under Part 1 so far as it includes provision made by virtue of paragraph 20(2) which—
	(a) imposed requirements on the trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme for which the Board has assumed responsibility, and
	(b) was made before the trustees or managers received the transfer notice.
	(2) From the time the trustees or managers of the scheme receive the transfer notice, the order has effect—
	(a) except in descriptions of case prescribed by regulations, with the modifications set out in sub-paragraph (3), and
	(b) with such other modifications as may be prescribed by regulations.
	(3) The modifications are that—
	(a) references in the order to the trustees or managers of the scheme have effect as references to the Board, and
	(b) references in the order to any pension or lump sum to which the civil partner with pension rights is or may become entitled under the scheme have effect as references to any PPF compensation to which that person is or may become entitled in respect of the pension or lump sum.
	Assumption of responsibility by PPF Board in paragraph 20(5) cases
	24C (1) This paragraph applies to an order under Part 1 if—
	(a) it includes provision made by virtue of paragraph 20(5) which requires the civil partner with pension rights to exercise his right of commutation under an occupational pension scheme to any extent, and
	(b) before the requirement is complied with the Board has assumed responsibility for the scheme.
	(2) From the time the trustees or managers of the scheme receive the transfer notice, the order has effect with such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations.
	Lump sums: power to modify paragraph 21 in respect of assessment period
	24D Regulations may modify paragraph 21 in its application to an occupational pension scheme during an assessment period in relation to the scheme.
	Assumption of responsibility by the Board not to affect power of court to vary order etc.
	24E (1) This paragraph applies where the court makes, in relation to an occupational pension scheme—
	(a) a pension sharing order, or
	(b) an order including provision made by virtue of paragraph 20(2) or (5).
	(2) If the Board subsequently assumes responsibility for the scheme, that does not affect—
	(a) the powers of the court under paragraph 38 to vary or discharge the order or to suspend or revive any provision of it;
	(b) on an appeal, the powers of the appeal court to affirm, reinstate, set aside or vary the order.
	Regulations
	24F Regulations may make such consequential modifications of any provision of, or made by virtue of, this Schedule as appear to the Lord Chancellor necessary or expedient to give effect to the provisions of this Part.
	24G (1) In this Part "regulations" means regulations made by the Lord Chancellor.
	(2) A power to make regulations under this Part is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).
	(3) Regulations under this Part are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in the same manner as a statutory instrument; and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (c. 36) applies accordingly.
	Interpretation
	24H (1) In this Part—
	"assessment period" means—
	(a) an assessment period within the meaning of Part 2 of the Pensions Act 2004 (pension protection), or
	(b) an equivalent period under corresponding Northern Ireland legislation;
	"the Board" means the Board of the Pension Protection Fund;
	"the civil partner with pension rights" has the meaning given by paragraph 24(1);
	"occupational pension scheme" has the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 (c. 49);
	"transfer notice" has the same meaning as in—
	(a) Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the 2004 Act, or
	(b) corresponding Northern Ireland legislation.
	(2) References in this Part to the Board assuming responsibility for a scheme are to the Board assuming responsibility for the scheme in accordance with—
	(a) Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the 2004 Act (pension protection), or
	(b) corresponding Northern Ireland legislation."
	118 Schedule 18, page 296, line 10, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
	"(4) The matters to which the court is to have regard under sub-paragraph (3)(a), so far as relating to paragraph 16(2)(a) of Schedule 16 (regard to be had to financial resources), include—
	(a) any benefits under a pension arrangement which either of the civil partners has or is likely to have, and
	(b) any PPF compensation to which a civil partner is or is likely to be entitled,
	(whether or not in the foreseeable future).
	(4A) The matters to which the court is to have regard under sub-paragraph (3)(a), so far as relating to paragraph 16(2)(h) of Schedule 16 (regard to be had to benefits that cease to be acquirable), include—
	(a) any benefits under a pension arrangement which, because of the dissolution or annulment of the civil partnership, one of the civil partners will lose the chance of acquiring, and
	(b) any PPF compensation which, because of the making of the dissolution or nullity order, a civil partner will lose the chance of acquiring entitlement to."
	119 Page 296, line 36, leave out "and"
	120 Page 296, line 39, at end insert ", and
	(c) "PPF compensation" has the same meaning as in Part 5A of Schedule 16."
	121 Page 298, line 45, at end insert—
	"( ) paragraphs 24B to 24H (orders under Part 1 relating to pensions where Board has assumed responsibility for scheme);"
	122 Schedule 21 Page 315, line 10, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Canada: Nova Scotia domestic partnership 
			 Canada: Quebec civil union" 
		
	
	After Schedule 23 123 Insert the following new Schedule—
	"Immigration control and formation of civil partnerships
	Part 1 Introduction
	Application of Schedule
	1 (1) This Schedule applies if—
	(a) two people wish to register as civil partners of each other, and
	(b) one of them is subject to immigration control.
	(2) For the purposes of this Schedule a person is subject to immigration control if—
	(a) he is not an EEA national, and
	(b) under the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) he requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (whether or not leave has been given).
	(3) "EEA national" means a national of a State which is a contracting party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area signed at Oporto on 2nd May 1992 (as it has effect from time to time).
	The qualifying condition
	2 (1) For the purposes of this Schedule the qualifying condition, in relation to a person subject to immigration control, is that the person—
	(a) has an entry clearance granted expressly for the purpose of enabling him to form a civil partnership in the United Kingdom,
	(b) has the written permission of the Secretary of State to form a civil partnership in the United Kingdom, or
	(c) falls within a class specified for the purpose of this paragraph by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
	(2) "Entry clearance" has the meaning given by section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77).
	(3) Section 25 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (c. 19) (regulations about applications for permission to marry) applies in relation to the permission referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b) as it applies in relation to permission to marry under sections 19(3)(b), 21(3)(b) and 23(3)(b) of that Act.
	Part 2 England and Wales
	Application of this Part
	3 This Part of this Schedule applies if the civil partnership is to be formed in England and Wales by signing a civil partnership schedule.
	Procedure for giving notice of proposed civil partnership
	4 (1) Each notice of proposed civil partnership under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of this Act—
	(a) must be given to a registration authority specified for the purposes of this paragraph by regulations made by the Secretary of State, and
	(b) must be delivered to the relevant individual in person by the two proposed civil partners.
	(2) "The relevant individual" means such employee or officer or other person provided by the specified registration authority as is determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this sub-paragraph.
	(3) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2) may, in particular, describe a person by reference to the location or office where he works.
	(4) Before making any regulations under this paragraph the Secretary of State must consult the Registrar General.
	Declaration 5
	The necessary declaration under section 9 must include a statement that the person subject to immigration control fulfils the qualifying condition (and the reason why).
	Recording of notice
	6 (1) The fact that a notice of proposed civil partnership has been given must not be recorded in the register unless the registration authority is satisfied by the production of specified evidence that the person fulfils the qualifying condition.
	(2) "Specified evidence" means such evidence as may be specified in guidance issued by the Registrar General.
	Supplementary
	7 (1) Part 2 of this Act has effect in any case where this Part of this Schedule applies subject to any necessary modification.
	(2) In particular section 52 has effect as if the matters proof of which is not necessary in support of the civil partnership included compliance with this Part of this Schedule.
	(3) An expression used in this Part of this Schedule and in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of this Act has the same meaning as in that Chapter.
	Part 3 Scotland
	Application of this Part
	8 This Part of this Schedule applies if the civil partnership is to be formed in Scotland.
	Procedure for giving notice of proposed civil partnership
	9 (1) Notice under section 86—
	(a) may be submitted to the district registrar of a district specified for the purposes of this paragraph by regulations made by the Secretary of State, and
	(b) may not be submitted to the district registrar of any other registration district.
	(2) Before making any regulations under this paragraph the Secretary of State must consult the Registrar General.
	Pre-condition for making entry in civil partnership notice book etc.
	10 (1) Where the district registrar to whom notice is submitted by virtue of paragraph 9(1) is the district registrar for the proposed place of registration, he shall neither—
	(a) make an entry under section 87, nor
	(b) complete a civil partnership schedule under section 92, in respect of the proposed civil partnership unless satisfied, by the provision of specified evidence, that the intended civil partner subject to immigration control fulfils the qualifying condition.
	(2) Where the district registrar to whom notice is so submitted (here the "notified registrar") is not the district registrar for the proposed place of registration (here the "second registrar")—
	(a) the notified registrar shall, if satisfied as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1), send the notices and any fee, certificate or declaration which accompanied them, to the second registrar, and
	(b) the second registrar shall be treated as having received the notices from the intended partners on the dates on which the notified registrar received them.
	(3) "Specified evidence" means such evidence as may be specified in guidance issued by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Registrar General.
	Supplementary
	11 (1) Part 3 of this Act has effect in any case where this Part of this Schedule applies subject to any necessary modification.
	(2) An expression used in this Part of this Schedule and in Part 3 of this Act has the same meaning as in that Part.
	Part 4 Northern Ireland Application of this Part 12 This Part of this Schedule applies if the civil partnership is to be formed in Northern Ireland.
	Procedure for giving civil partnership notices
	13 (1) The civil partnership notices must be given—
	(a) only to a prescribed registrar, and
	(b) in prescribed cases by both parties together in person at a prescribed register office.
	(2) Before making any regulations under this paragraph the Secretary of State must consult the Registrar General.
	Accompanying statement as to the qualifying condition
	14 A civil partnership notice given by a person subject to immigration control must be accompanied by a statement that the person fulfils the qualifying condition (and the reason why).
	Civil partnership notice book and civil partnership schedule
	15 (1) No action must be taken under section 136(1) or 139 (civil partnership notice book and civil partnership schedule) unless the prescribed registrar is satisfied by the production of specified evidence that the person fulfils the qualifying condition.
	(2) If the prescribed registrar is satisfied as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) but is not the registrar for the purposes of section 136(1), the prescribed registrar must send him the civil partnership notices and he is to be treated as having received them when the prescribed registrar received them.
	(3) "Specified evidence" means such evidence as may be specified in guidance issued by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Registrar General.
	Supplementary
	16 (1) Part 4 of this Act has effect in any case where this Part of this Schedule applies subject to any necessary modification.
	(2) In particular, section 172 has effect as if the matters proof of which is not necessary in support of the civil partnership included compliance with this Part of this Schedule.
	(3) In this Part of this Schedule—
	(a) "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;
	(b) "registrar" means a person appointed under section 148(1)(a) or (b) or (3);
	(c) other expressions have the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of Part 4 of this Act.
	(4) Section 18(3) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c.33 (N.I.)) (provisions as to holders of offices) shall apply to this Part of this Schedule as if it were an enactment within the meaning of that Act.
	Part 5 Regulations
	17 Any power to make regulations under this Schedule is exercisable by statutory instrument which is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
	124 Schedule 24, page 319, line 19, at end insert—
	"In section 8 (role of the courts with respect to maintenance for children), after subsection (11)(e) insert—
	(ea) Schedule 6, 7 or 8 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004; or"."
	125 Page 320, line 32, at end insert—
	"In Article 10 (role of the courts with respect to maintenance for children), after paragraph (11)(d) insert—
	(da) Schedule 16, 17 or 18 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004; or"."
	126 Page 325, line 16, at end insert—
	"In section 61A (contributions paid in error), in subsection (3)—
	(a) after "spouse" insert "or civil partner", and
	(b) in paragraph (b), for "widows or widowers" substitute "widows, widowers or surviving civil partners"."
	127 Page 326, line 13, at end insert—
	"In section 113 (general provisions as to disqualification and suspension), in subsection (1), for "wife or husband," substitute "wife, husband or civil partner,"."
	128 Page 328, line 4, at end insert—
	"In section 171ZL (entitlement to statutory adoption pay), in subsection (4)(b)—
	(a) after "married couple" insert "or civil partnership", and
	(b) after "spouse" (in each place) insert "or civil partner"."
	129 Page 328, line 20, at end insert—
	"( ) In paragraph 5(2)(a)(ii) of Part 1, after "spouses" insert "or civil partners"."
	130 Page 330, line 5, leave out paragraph 58 and insert—
	"58 (1) Amend section 107 (recovery of expenditure on income support: additional amounts and transfer of orders) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)(b), after "wife" insert "or civil partner".
	(3) In subsection (15), after paragraph (a)(ii) of the definition of "maintenance order" insert—
	"(iii) any order under Schedule 8 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 for the making of periodical payments or for the payment of a lump sum;"."
	131 Page 334, line 14, at end insert—
	"In section 61A (contributions paid in error), in subsection (3)—
	(a) after "spouse" insert "or civil partner", and
	(b) in paragraph (b), for "widows or widowers" substitute "widows, widowers or surviving civil partners"."
	132 Page 335, line 10, at end insert—
	"In section 113 (general provisions as to disqualification and suspension), in subsection (1), for "wife or husband," substitute "wife, husband or civil partner,"."
	133 Page 337, line 3, at end insert—
	"In section 167ZL (entitlement to statutory adoption pay), in subsection (4)(b)—
	(a) after "married couple" insert "or civil partnership", and
	(b) after "spouse" (in each place) insert "or civil partner"."
	134 Page 337, line 19, at end insert—
	"( ) In paragraph 5(2)(a)(ii) of Part 1, after "spouses" insert "or civil partners"."
	135 Page 339, line 13, at end insert—
	"In section 3 (the income-based conditions), in subsection (1)(dd) and (e), for "married or unmarried couple" substitute "couple".
	In section 15 (effect on other claimants), in subsection (2)(b), for "married or unmarried couple" substitute "couple".
	In section 15A (trade disputes: joint-claim couples), in subsection (5)(c), for "married or unmarried couple" substitute "couple"."
	136 Page 339, line 15, at end insert—
	"In section 31 (termination of awards), in subsections (1) and (2), for "married or unmarried couple" substitute "couple"."
	137 Page 339, line 40, at end insert—
	"In Schedule 1 (supplementary provisions), in paragraph 9C(1), for "married or unmarried couple" substitute "couple"."
	138 Page 341, line 33, at end insert—
	"In Article 5 (the income-based conditions), in paragraphs (1)(dd) and (e), for "married or unmarried couple" substitute "couple".
	In Article 17 (effect on other claimants), in paragraph (2)(b), for "married or unmarried couple" substitute "couple".
	In Article 17A (trade disputes: joint-claim couples), in paragraph (5)(c), for "married or unmarried couple" substitute "couple"."
	139 Page 341, line 35, at end insert—
	"In Article 32 (termination of awards), in paragraphs (1) and (2), for "married or unmarried couple" substitute "couple".
	In Schedule 1 (supplementary provisions), in paragraph 9C(1), for "married or unmarried couple" substitute "couple"."
	140 Page 341, line 35, at end insert—
	"Part 10A Amendments of the Social Security Act 1998 (c. 14)
	(1) Amend section 72 (power to reduce child benefit for lone parents) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2), after "spouse" (in each place) insert "or civil partner".
	(3) After subsection (2) insert—
	"(3) For the purpose of this section, a parent is to be regarded as living with another person as his civil partner if, but only if, he would be regarded as living with the other person as his spouse, were they instead two people of the opposite sex."
	Part 10B Amendments of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1506 (N.I. 10))
	(1) Amend Article 68 (power to reduce child benefit for lone parents) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph (2), after "spouse" (in each place) insert "or civil partner".
	(3) After paragraph (2) insert—
	"(3) For the purpose of this Article, a parent is to be regarded as living with another person as his civil partner if, but only if, he would be regarded as living with the other person as his spouse, were they instead two people of the opposite sex."."
	141 Schedule 27, page 349, line 2, at end insert—
	"Explosive Substances Act 1883 (c. 3) In section 6 (inquiry by Attorney-General, and apprehension of absconding witnesses), in subsection (2), for "husband or wife" (in both places) substitute "spouse or civil partner".
	Partnership Act 1890 (c. 39)
	In section 2 (rules for determining existence of partnership), in rule (3)(c), after "widow" insert ", widower, surviving civil partner"."
	142 Page 349, line 5, at end insert—
	"Census Act 1920 (c. 41) In the Schedule (matters in respect of which particulars may be required), in paragraph 5 after "as to marriage" insert "or civil partnership"."
	143 Page 349, line 24, at end insert—
	"Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act 1926 (c. 61)
	(1) Amend section 1 (restriction on publication of reports of judicial proceedings) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)(b), for "or for restitution of conjugal rights" substitute "or for the dissolution or annulment of a civil partnership or for the separation of civil partners".
	(3) Omit subsection (5).
	Population (Statistics) Act 1938 (c. 12)
	In the Schedule (particulars which may be required), in paragraph 2—
	(a) in paragraph (a), for "or divorced;" substitute ", divorced, a civil partner or former civil partner, and, if a former civil partner, whether the civil partnership ended on death or dissolution;", and
	(b) in paragraph (b), after "surviving spouse" insert "or civil partner"."
	144 Page 349, line 27, at end insert—
	"Limitation (Enemies and War Prisoners) Act 1945 (c. 16) In section 2 (interpretation), in the definition of "statute of limitation", after the entry relating to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 insert—
	"section 51(2) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004,".
	Statistics of Trade Act 1947 (c. 39) In section 10 (information from persons entering or leaving the United Kingdom by air), in subsection (1), after "marriage" insert "or civil partnership"."
	145 Page 350, line 15, at end insert—
	"In section 27 (notice of marriage), in subsection (3), for "the name and surname, marital status, occupation, place of residence and nationality of each of the persons to be married" substitute "the name and surname, occupation, place of residence and nationality of each of the persons to be married, whether either of them has previously been married or formed a civil partnership and, if so, how the marriage or civil partnership ended".
	In section 28A (power to require evidence), for subsection (3) substitute—
	"(3) "Specified evidence", in relation to a person, means such evidence as may be specified in guidance issued by the Registrar General— (a) of the person's name and surname, (b) of the person's age, (c) as to whether the person has previously been married or formed a civil partnership and, if so, as to the ending of the marriage or civil partnership, and (d) of the person's nationality.""
	146 Page 351, line 20, leave out paragraph 9 and insert—
	"9 (1) Amend section 16 (application of Part 2) as follows.
	(2) After subsection (2)(a)(viii) insert—
	(ix) Part 1, 7 or 8 of Schedule 6 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004, Schedule 7 to that Act or paragraph 5 or 9 of Schedule 8 to that Act;".
	(3) After subsection (2)(b)(ix) insert—
	(x) an order made on an application under Schedule 12 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004;".
	(4) After subsection (2)(c)(ix) insert—
	(x) Part 1, 6 or 7 of Schedule 16 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004, Schedule 17 to that Act or paragraph 5 or 9 of Schedule 18 to that Act;"."
	147 Page 352, line 15, at end insert—
	"Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 (c. 41) In section 2 (exception for premises in which only employer's relatives or outworkers work), in subsection (1), after "wife" insert ", civil partner".
	Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 (c. 12)
	(1) Amend section 23 (nomination to property in society) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2), for "husband, wife," substitute "spouse, civil partner,".
	(3) After subsection (6) insert— "(7) The formation of a civil partnership by a member of a society revokes any nomination made by him before the formation of the civil partnership; but if any property of that member has been transferred by an officer of the society in pursuance of the nomination in ignorance of a civil partnership formed by the nominator after the date of the nomination—
	(a) the receipt of the nominee shall be a valid discharge to the society, and
	(b) the society shall be under no liability to any other person claiming the property."
	In section 25 (provision for intestacy), in subsection (2), after "widower" insert ", surviving civil partner".
	Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19)
	In section 44A (appeals in cases of death), in subsection (3)(a), after "widower" insert "or surviving civil partner".
	Theft Act 1968 (c. 60)
	(1) Amend section 30 (husband and wife) as follows.
	(2) In subsections (4) and (5), after "wife or husband" in each place except paragraph (a)(ii) to the proviso to subsection (4) insert "or civil partner".
	(3) At the end of paragraph (a)(ii) to the proviso insert "or
	(iii) an order (wherever made) is in force providing for the separation of that person and his or her civil partner.",
	and omit "or" at the end of paragraph (a)(i) to the proviso.
	(4) For the heading to section 30 substitute "Spouses and civil partners".
	In section 31 (effect on civil proceedings and rights), in subsection (1)—
	(a) for "wife or husband" substitute "spouse or civil partner", and
	(b) for "married after the making of the statement or admission) against the wife or husband" substitute "married or became civil partners after the making of the statement or admission) against the spouse or civil partner".
	Domestic and Appellate Proceedings (Restriction of Publicity) Act 1968 (c. 63)
	(1) Amend section 2 (restriction of publicity for certain matrimonial etc. proceedings) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (d) insert—
	(da) proceedings under Part 8 of Schedule 6 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (provision corresponding to the provision referred to in paragraph (c) above);
	(db) proceedings under section 58 of the 2004 Act (declarations as to subsistence etc. of civil partnership);".
	(3) In subsection (3), after "(1)(d)" insert or (db)".
	Civil Evidence Act 1968 (c. 64)
	In section 14 (privilege against incrimination of self or spouse)—
	(a) in subsection (1)(b), for "husband or wife" substitute "spouse or civil partner", and
	(b) in the heading, after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	Gaming Act 1968 (c. 65) In Schedule 2 (grant, renewal, cancellation and transfer of licences), in paragraph 35A(8)(a) for "wife or husband" substitute "spouse or civil partner".
	Medicines Act 1968 (c. 67) In section 114 (supplementary provisions as to rights of entry and related rights), in subsection (4), for "married) the husband or wife" substitute "married or a civil partner) the spouse or civil partner"."
	148 Page 352, line 23, at end insert—
	"Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 (c. 32) In Schedule 1 (maintenance orders to which the 1971 Act applies), after paragraph 14 insert—
	"15 An order made under Schedule 6 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.), for periodical or other payments.
	16 An order made under Schedule 7 to the 2004 Act (financial relief in magistrates' courts etc.), for maintenance or other payments to or in respect of a civil partner or child."
	Criminal Damage Act 1971 (c. 48) In section 9 (evidence in connection with offences under the 1971 Act)—
	(a) for "wife or husband" substitute "spouse or civil partner", and
	(b) for "married after the making of the statement or admission) against the wife or husband" substitute "married or became civil partners after the making of the statement or admission) against the spouse or civil partner"."
	149 Page 352, line 27, at end insert—
	"Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) In section 95 (pecuniary interests for purposes of section 94), after subsection (3) insert—
	"(4) In the case of civil partners living together the interest of one civil partner, shall, if known to the other, be deemed for the purpose of section 94 above to be also an interest of the other." In section 96 (general notices and recording of disclosures for purposes of section 94), in subsection (1), after "spouse" (in each place) insert "or civil partner"."
	150 Page 353, line 33, at end insert—
	"Fair Trading Act 1973 (c. 41) In section 30 (offences in connection with exercise of powers under section 29), in subsection (6) for "married) the husband or wife" substitute "married or a civil partner) the spouse or civil partner".
	Slaughterhouses Act 1974 (c. 3) In section 10 (temporary continuance of licence on death), for "his personal representative, or of his widow or any other member of his family, until the expiration of two months from his death," substitute "the deceased's personal representative, or widow or widower or surviving civil partner or any other member of the deceased's family, until the end of two months from the deceased's death,".
	Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (c. 37) In section 20 (powers of inspectors), in subsection (7), for "husband or wife" substitute "spouse or civil partner"."
	151 Page 353, line 34, at end insert—
	"In section 165 (obstruction of authorised officers), in subsection (3), for "married) the husband or wife" substitute "married or a civil partner) the spouse or civil partner"."
	152 Page 354, line 7, at end insert—
	"Friendly Societies Act 1974 (c. 46)
	(1) Amend section 66 (power of member to nominate person to receive sums payable on his death) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (5)(a), for "husband, wife," substitute "spouse, civil partner,".
	(3) After subsection (7) insert— "(7A) The formation of a civil partnership by a member of the society or branch revokes any nomination previously made by that member under this section."
	Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (c. 53) In section 7 (limitations on rehabilitation under the 1974 Act, etc.), in subsection (2)(c), after "the marriage of any minor," insert "or the formation of a civil partnership by any minor,"."
	153 Page 354, line 15, at end insert—
	"Criminal Law Act 1977 (c. 45) In section 2 (exemptions from liability for conspiracy), in subsection (2)(a), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner"."
	154 Page 355, line 4, at end insert—
	"Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) In section 1A (marriage and other relationships), in subsections (1)(a) and (2)(a) after "were married" insert "or civil partners of each other"."
	155 Page 355, line 14, at end insert—
	"In section 27 (obstruction and personation of authorised officers), in subsection (4), for "husband or wife" substitute "spouse or civil partner"."
	156 Page 355, line 22, at end insert—
	"Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) In section 59 (orders for periodical payments: means of payment), in subsection (7)(b), after "Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978" insert "or Schedule 7 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004".
	(1) Amend section 65 (meaning of family proceedings) as follows.
	(2) After subsection (1)(c) insert—
	(ca) Schedule 3 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004;".
	(3) After subsection (1)(ee) insert—
	(ef) paragraphs 61 to 64 of Schedule 6 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004;".
	(4) After subsection (1)(j) insert—
	(ja) Schedule 7 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004;".
	Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981 (c. 18) In section 9 (interpretation), in the definition of "relative", for "husband or wife" substitute "spouse or civil partner".
	Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (c. 45) In section 5 (offences relating to money orders, share certificates, passports, etc.), in subsection (5)(l)—
	(a) after "adoptions, marriages" insert ", civil partnerships", and
	(b) for "register marriages" substitute "issue certified copies relating to such entries"."
	157 Page 355, line 31, at end insert—
	"(1) Amend section 72 (withdrawal of privilege against incrimination of self or spouse in certain proceedings) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	(3) In subsection (3), for "married after the making of the statement or admission) against the spouse" substitute "married or became civil partners after the making of the statement or admission) against the spouse or civil partner"."
	158 Page 355, line 33, leave out from "after" to end of line 35 and insert "sub-paragraph (h) insert—"(i) all civil partnership causes and matters (whether at first instance or on appeal); (j) applications for consent to the formation of a civil partnership by a minor or for a declaration under paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004; (k) applications under section 58 of that Act (declarations relating to civil partnerships)."."
	159 Page 356, line 18, at end insert—
	"Forfeiture Act 1982 (c. 34) In section 3 (application for financial provision not affected by forfeiture rule), in subsection (2), for paragraph (b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it substitute—
	(b) sections 31(6) and 36(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (variation by court in England and Wales of periodical payments orders and maintenance agreements in respect of marriages);
	(c) paragraphs 52(2) and 65(2) of Schedule 6 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (variation by court in England and Wales of periodical payments orders and maintenance agreements in respect of civil partnerships); and
	(d) section 13(4) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 (variation etc. of periodical allowances in respect of marriages and civil partnerships)."
	Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2)
	(1) Amend section 14 (service qualification) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)(d), for "wife or husband" substitute "spouse or civil partner".
	(3) For subsection (1)(e) substitute—
	(e) is the spouse or civil partner of a person mentioned in paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) above and is residing outside the United Kingdom to be with his or her spouse or civil partner,". In section 16 (contents of service declaration), for "wife or husband" substitute "spouse or civil partner". In section 59 (supplemental provisions as to members of forces and service voters), in subsection (3)(b), for "by him and any wife of his or, as the case may be, by her and any husband of hers," substitute "by that person and any spouse or civil partner of that person". In section 61 (other voting offences), in subsection (4), for "husband, wife," substitute "spouse, civil partner,". In section 141 (duty to answer relevant questions), in subsections (1)(a)(i) and (2)(a), for "husband or wife," substitute "spouse or civil partner,".
	(1) Amend Schedule 1 (parliamentary elections rules) as follows.
	(2) In rule 11(4), for "wife or husband" substitute "spouse or civil partner".
	(3) In rule 35(2), for "husband (wife)," (in both places) substitute "spouse, civil partner,".
	(4) In rule 39(3)(b), for "husband, wife," substitute "spouse, civil partner,".
	(5) In rule 44(2)(b), for "wives or husbands" substitute "spouses or civil partners"."
	160 Page 361, line 2, at end insert—
	"Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60)
	(1) Amend section 80 (compellability of accused's spouse) as follows.
	(2) In subsections (2), (2A) and (3), for "wife or husband" (in each place) substitute "spouse or civil partner".
	(3) After subsection (5) insert— "(5A) In any proceedings a person who has been but is no longer the civil partner of the accused shall be compellable to give evidence as if that person and the accused had never been civil partners."
	(4) In the heading to section 80, after "accused's spouse" insert "or civil partner". In section 80A (rule where accused's spouse not compellable)—
	(a) for "wife or husband" substitute "spouse or civil partner", and
	(b) in the heading, after "spouse" insert "or civil partner"."
	161 Page 361, line 28, at end insert—
	"57A (1) Amend section 742A (meaning of "offer to the public") as follows.
	(2) In subsection (3)(a)(iii), after "widower" insert "or surviving civil partner".
	(3) In subsection (6)(a), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	57B In Schedule 7 (matters to be dealt with in directors' report), in paragraph 2B(3), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 (c. 29) 57C In section 3 (scope of authority etc. of attorney under enduring power), in subsection (5)(a), for "or marriage" substitute ", marriage or the formation of a civil partnership". 57D In Schedule 1 (notification prior to registration of instrument creating power of attorney), in paragraph 2(1)—
	(a) in paragraph (a), after "wife" insert "or civil partner", and
	(b) in paragraph (e), after "widower" insert "or surviving civil partner". 57E Paragraphs 57C and 57D apply in relation to the exercise of powers under enduring powers of attorney created before the passing of this Act as well as in relation to those created on or after its passing.
	Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (c. 48) 57F In Schedule 2 (officers and their powers), in paragraph 2A(4), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (c. 60) 57G In section 24A (power to order disclosure of child's whereabouts), in subsection (2), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	Airports Act 1986 (c. 31) 57H In section 20 (powers of investment and disposal in relation to public airport companies), in subsection (6)(b), after "widowers" insert ", civil partners, surviving civil partners"."
	162 Page 361, line 29, at end insert—
	"In section 215 (proceedings under sections 213, 214), in subsection (3)(b), after "marriage" insert "or the formation of a civil partnership".
	In section 283A (bankrupt's home ceasing to form part of estate), in subsection (1)—
	(a) in paragraph (b), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner", and
	(b) in paragraph (c), after "spouse" insert "or former civil partner".
	In section 313 (charge on bankrupt's home), in subsection (1), after "former spouse" insert "or by his civil partner or former civil partner".
	In section 313A (low value home: application for sale, possession or charge), in subsection (1)—
	(a) in paragraph (a)(ii), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner", and
	(b) in paragraph (a)(iii), after "spouse" insert "or former civil partner".
	In section 329 (debts to spouse), in subsection (1), after "spouse" (in each place) insert "or civil partner".
	In section 332 (saving for bankrupt's home), in subsection (1), after "former spouse" insert "or by his civil partner or former civil partner".
	In section 335A (rights under trusts of land), in subsection (2)(b)—
	(a) for "bankrupt's spouse or former spouse" substitute "bankrupt's spouse or civil partner or former spouse or former civil partner", and
	(b) in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), for "spouse or former spouse" substitute "spouse, civil partner, former spouse or former civil partner".
	In section 339 (transactions at an undervalue), in subsection (3)(b), after "marriage" insert "or the formation of a civil partnership".
	In section 366 (inquiry into bankrupt's dealings and property), in subsection (1)(a), after "former spouse" insert "or civil partner or former civil partner".
	In section 423 (transactions defrauding creditors), in subsection (1)(b), after "marriage" insert "or the formation of a civil partnership"."
	163 Page 362, line 6, at end insert—
	"In section 33 (power to order disclosure of child's whereabouts), in subsection (2), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner"."
	164 Page 362, line 12, at end insert—
	"Consumer Protection Act 1987 (c. 43) In section 47 (savings for certain privileges), in subsection (2), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) In section 160A (marriage and other relationships), in subsections (1)(a) and (2)(a), after "were married" insert "or civil partners of each other"."
	165 Page 362, line 15, at end insert—
	"Children Act 1989 (c. 41)
	(1) Amend section 8 (residence, contact and other orders with respect to children) as follows.
	(2) After subsection (4)(b) insert—
	(ba) Schedule 6 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004;".
	(3) After subsection (4)(e) insert—
	(ea) Schedule 7 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004;".
	In section 48 (powers to assist in discovery of children who may be in need of emergency protection), in subsection (2), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	In section 50 (recovery of abducted children etc.), in subsection (11), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	In section 98 (self-incrimination), in subsections (1) and (2), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42) In section 19 (members' interests) in subsection (7), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	In section 69 (companies subject to local authority influence), in subsection (6)(c), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner"."
	166 Page 362, line 19, at end insert—
	"Food Safety Act 1990 (c. 16) In section 43 (continuance of registration or licence on death) in subsection (2), for the words from "the deceased's personal representative" to "his death" substitute "the deceased's personal representative, or widow or widower or surviving civil partner or any other member of the deceased's family, until the end of—
	(a) the period of three months beginning with the deceased's death".
	Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41) In section 10 (family proceedings in magistrates' courts and related matters), in subsection (1), after "Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978" insert "or Schedule 7 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004".
	In section 58A (conditional fee agreements: supplementary), omit "and" at the end of subsection (2)(f) and insert—
	(fa) Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (proceedings for dissolution etc. of civil partnership);
	(fb) Schedule 6 to the 2004 Act (financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.);
	(fc) Schedule 7 to the 2004 Act (financial relief in magistrates' courts etc.);
	(fd) Schedule 8 to the 2004 Act (financial relief in England and Wales after overseas dissolution etc. of a civil partnership); and"."
	167 Page 362, line 30, at end insert—
	"( ) After section 9(3) insert—
	"(4) For the purposes of this section two persons are civil partners of each other if they are of the same sex and either—
	(a) they are civil partners of each other; or
	(b) they are not civil partners of each other but are living together as if they were civil partners.""
	168 Page 362, line 38, at end insert—
	"In Schedule 2 (the activities of a friendly society), in Head A, in class II—
	(a) in the second column (description), after "Marriage" insert ", civil partnership", and
	(b) in the third column (nature of business), after "sum on marriage" insert "or on the formation of a civil partnership".
	Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992 (c. 52)
	In section 23 (restriction on enforcement of awards against certain property), in subsection (3)(b) for "the wife" substitute "the spouse or civil partner".
	In section 241 (intimidation or annoyance by violence or otherwise), in subsection (1)(a), for "wife" substitute "spouse or civil partner".
	In section 292 (death of employee or employer), in subsection (3)(b), after "widow," insert "surviving civil partner,"."
	169 Page 363, line 9, leave out paragraph 70 and insert—
	"70 (1) In section 23 (exemption for small dwellings), amend subsection (7) as follows.
	(2) In the definition of "near relative"—
	(a) after "spouse" insert "or civil partner", and
	(b) for "by affinity)" substitute "by marriage or civil partnership)".
	(3) For the definition of "partner" substitute—
	""partner" means the other member of a couple consisting of—
	(a) a man and a woman who are not married to each other but are living together as husband and wife, or
	(b) two people of the same sex who are not civil partners of each other but are living together as if they were civil partners.""
	170 Page 363, line 12, at end insert—
	"Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18)
	In section 57A (time off for dependants), in subsection (3)(a), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	Family Law Act 1996 (c. 27)
	(1) Amend section 64 (provision for separate representation for children) as follows.
	(2) Omit "or" at the end of subsection (1)(c).
	(3) At the end of subsection (1)(d) insert "or
	(e) Schedule 6 or 7 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004."
	171 Page 363, line 15, at end insert—
	"Civil Procedure Act 1997 (c. 12) In section 7 (power of courts to make orders for preserving evidence etc.), in subsection (7), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (c. 39) In section 14 (powers of officers), in subsection (2), for "married, the person's spouse" substitute "married or a civil partner, the person's spouse or civil partner".
	Access to Justice Act 1999 (c. 22)
	In Schedule 2 (community legal service: excluded services), in paragraph 2(3)(d), after "Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978" insert "or Schedule 7 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004"."
	172 Page 366, line 43, at end insert—
	"Representation of the People Act 2000 (c. 2)
	(1) Amend Schedule 4 (absent voting in Great Britain) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 3(3)(c), for "his spouse," (in both places) substitute "his spouse or civil partner,".
	(3) In paragraph 6(6), for "husband, wife," substitute "spouse, civil partner,"."
	173 Page 367, line 2, at end insert—
	"Land Registration Act 2002 (c. 9)
	In section 125 (privilege against self-incrimination), in subsection (2), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner"."
	174 Page 367, line 5, at end insert— "In section 222 (bodies corporate: accessories), in subsection (10), after "spouse" in paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (e) (in each place) insert "or civil partner".
	Licensing Act 2003 (c. 17) In section 101 (minimum of 24 hours between event periods), in subsection (3)(a) and (d), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner"."
	175 Page 367, line 9, at end insert—
	"Courts Act 2003 (c. 39) In section 76 (further provision about scope of Family Procedure Rules), in subsection (2)(b), after "divorce county court" insert "or civil partnership proceedings county court (within the meaning of Part 5 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984)"."
	176 Page 367, line 22, at end insert—
	"85 (1) Amend section 43 (sections 38 and 41: marriage exception) as follows.
	(2) At the end of subsection (1)(b) insert "or civil partners of each other".
	(3) In subsection (2), for "were lawfully married at the time" substitute "were at the time lawfully married or civil partners of each other".
	(4) In the heading to section 43 for "marriage exception" substitute "exception for spouses and civil partners"."
	177 Schedule 28, page 368, line 5, at end insert—
	"In section 10(2) (calculation of legal rights), for "jus relicti, jus relictae or legitim" substitute "legal rights"."
	178 Page 368, line 13, at end insert—
	"In section 36(1) (interpretation), in the definition of "prior rights", after "spouse" insert "or civil partner"."
	179 Page 374, line 2, at end insert—
	"In section 16(4) (presentation of petition for recall of sequestration), for "section 41(1)(b)" substitute "sections 41(1)(b) and 41A(1)(b)".
	In section 17(8)(b) (duties of clerk of court in relation to recall of sequestration), after "41(1)(b)(ii)" insert "or 41A(1)(b)(ii)"."
	180 Page 374, line 8, at end insert—
	"In section 34(7) (gratuitous alienations: saving for operation of Married Women's Policies of Assurance (Scotland) Act 1880), at the end insert "including the operation of that section as applied by section 128 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004"."
	181 Page 374, line 13, at end insert—
	"( ) In paragraph (d) of that subsection, for "paragraph (a) or (b)" substitute "paragraphs (a) to (b)"."
	182 Page 375, line 14, at end insert—
	"In section 51(3)(b) (meaning of "postponed debt"), at the end insert "or civil partner"."
	183 Page 375, line 16, at end insert—
	"(1) Amend Schedule 1 (determination of amount of creditor's claim) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 2(1)(a), the words "in the case of spouses (or, where the aliment is payable to a divorced person in respect of a child, former spouses)" become paragraph 2(1)(a)(i).
	(3) At the end of paragraph 2(1)(a)(i) insert ", or
	(ii) in the case of civil partners (or, where the aliment is payable to a former civil partner in respect of a child after dissolution of a civil partnership, former civil partners),".
	(4) In paragraph 2(2), after "divorce" insert "or on dissolution of a civil partnership"."
	184 Page 377, leave out lines 18 to 21 and insert—
	"(1) Amend section 105 (meaning of "member of a person's family") as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)(a)—
	(a) after "spouse" insert "or civil partner", and
	(b) at the end insert "or in a relationship which has the characteristics of the relationship between civil partners".
	(3) In subsection (2)(a), after "a relationship by marriage" insert "or civil partnership"."
	185 Page 377, line 23, leave out paragraphs 46 to 53
	186 Page 378, line 28, at end insert—
	"Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 (c. 18) In section 106 (interpretation), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "maintenance order"—
	(a) after "divorce" insert "or on dissolution of a civil partnership", and
	(b) after "marriage" insert "or of nullity of a civil partnership"."
	187 After Schedule 28 Insert the following new Schedule—
	"Minor and consequential amendments: Northern Ireland
	Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (N.I.))
	1 In section 46 (miscellaneous definitions), in subsection (2), after the definition of "barrister-at-law" insert—
	""civil partnership" means a civil partnership which exists under the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (and any reference to a civil partner shall be construed accordingly);".
	Trustee Act (Northern Ireland) 1958 (c. 23 (N.I.))
	2 (1) Amend section 32(3)(a) (trust on reaching 18 or marrying under that age of accumulations during infancy) as follows.
	(2) In sub-paragraph (i)—
	(a) after "marries under that age" insert "or forms a civil partnership under that age", and
	(b) for "or until his marriage" substitute ", or until his marriage or his formation of a civil partnership,".
	(3) In sub-paragraph (ii), after "marriage" insert ", or on formation of a civil partnership,".
	(4) In the words after that sub-paragraph, after "marriage" insert "or formation of a civil partnership".
	3 (1) Amend section 34(1)(b) (trust to maintain principal beneficiary and his spouse and issue on failure of protective trust under paragraph (a)(ii)) as follows.
	(2) In sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), for "wife or husband" substitute "spouse or civil partner".
	(3) In sub-paragraph (ii), after "married" insert "or formed a civil partnership".
	Perpetuities Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 (c. 2 (N.I.))
	4 (1) Amend section 3 (uncertainty as to remoteness) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (4)(a), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	(3) In subsection (5)(f), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	5 (1) Amend section 5 (condition relating to death of surviving spouse) as follows.
	(2) After "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	(3) In the heading to section 5, after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	Office and Shop Premises Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 (c. 26 (N.I.)) 6 In section 2 (exception for premises in which only employer's relatives or outworkers work), in subsection (1), after "wife" insert ", civil partner".
	Maintenance and Affiliation Orders Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 (c. 35 (N.I.)) 7 In section 10 (orders to which Part 2 of the Act applies), in subsection (2), after paragraph (h) insert—
	"(i) paragraph 2(1)(a) or (d), 25, 26(3) or 28(1)(a) or (d) of Schedule 16, Schedule 17, or paragraph 9 of Schedule 18 so far as that paragraph applies Part 1 of Schedule 16, to the Civil Partnership Act 2004;".
	8 (1) Amend section 13 (variation of orders registered in courts of summary jurisdiction) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (5A), after "1980" insert "or paragraph 42 of Schedule 17 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004".
	(3) In subsection (7B), after "1989" insert "or paragraph 9 of Schedule 18 so far as that paragraph applies Part 1 of Schedule 16".
	Census Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 (c. 8 (N.I.))
	9 In the Schedule (matters of which particulars may be required), in paragraph 5, after "marriage" insert "or civil partnership".
	Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 (c. 16 (N.I.))
	10 (1) Amend section 29(1) (effect on civil proceedings and rights) as follows.
	(2) For "wife or husband" substitute "spouse or civil partner".
	(3) For "married after the making of the statement or admission) against the wife or husband" substitute "married or became civil partners after the making of the statement or admission) against the spouse or civil partner".
	Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 (c. 24 (N.I.))
	11 (1) Amend section 22 (nomination to property in society) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2), for "husband, wife," substitute "spouse, civil partner,".
	(3) In subsection (6)—
	(a) for "marriage of" substitute "formation of a marriage or civil partnership by";
	(b) after "before the marriage" insert "or civil partnership was formed";
	(c) for "a marriage contracted" substitute "the formation of a marriage or civil partnership".
	12 In the definition of "member of the family" in section 101(1) (interpretation), for "husband, wife," substitute "spouse, civil partner,".
	Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 (c. 18 (N.I.))
	13 In Schedule 11 (matters required to be registered in the Statutory Charges Register), after paragraph 45 insert—
	"46 An order under paragraph 59(2) of Schedule 16 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 to the extent that by virtue of paragraph 61(1)(b) of that Schedule it renders liable to be set aside at the instance of an applicant for financial relief a disposition of any land in Northern Ireland which is specified in the order."
	Leasehold (Enlargement and Extension) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 (c. 7 (N.I.))
	14 In section 1 (general right to acquire fee simple or to obtain extension of lease), in subsection (3)(f)(i) to (iv), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	15 In section 19 (restrictions on right to extension of lease or to acquire fee simple), in subsection (1)(a)(i), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	Civil Evidence Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 (c. 36 (N.I.))
	16 (1) Amend section 10 (privilege against incrimination of self or spouse).
	(2) In subsection (1), for "husband or wife" substitute "spouse or civil partner".
	(3) In the heading to section 10, after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 (c. 9 (N.I.))
	17 In section 30 (relatives of councillors), in subsection (6) (relevant family relationship)—
	(a) after "husband and wife" insert "or civil partners";
	(b) after "husband or wife" insert (in both places) "or civil partner". 18 In section 146 (interpretation: pecuniary interests), in subsection (2) (interests of spouses living together)—
	(a) after "spouses" insert (in both places) "or civil partners";
	(b) after "spouse" insert (in both places) "or civil partner".
	Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment and Compulsory Insurance) (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I. 1972/963 (N.I. 6))
	19 In Article 6(a) (persons whom employer is not required to insure) after "husband, wife," insert "civil partner,".
	Births and Deaths Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I. 1976/1041 (N.I. 14))
	20 In Article 2(2) (interpretation), in the definition of "relative", after "by marriage" insert "or civil partnership".
	Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I. 1976/1042 (N.I. 15))
	21 In Article 2(6) (meaning of "near relative")—
	(a) after "wife or husband" (in both places) insert "or civil partner", and
	(b) for "by affinity)" substitute "by marriage or civil partnership)".
	Pharmacy (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I. 1976/1213 (N.I. 22))
	22 In Article 3(3)(e)(iii) (objects of Pharmaceutical Society include providing relief for distressed relatives), for "widows," substitute "surviving spouses, surviving civil partners,".
	Criminal Damage (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (S.I. 1977/426 (N.I. 4))
	23 (1) Amend Article 11 (evidence in connection with offences under the Order) as follows.
	(2) For "wife or husband" substitute "spouse or civil partner".
	(3) For "married after the making of the statement or admission) against the wife or husband" substitute "married or became civil partners after the making of the statement or admission) against the spouse or civil partner".
	Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (c. 23)
	24 In section 31 (remittal and removal of proceedings), in subsection (7)(b), after "1882" insert "or section 186 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004".
	25 (1) Amend section 35(2) (restrictions on appeals to Court of Appeal from High Court) as follows.
	(2) After paragraph (e) insert—
	"(ea) from a dissolution order, nullity order or presumption of death order under Chapter 2 of Part 4 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 that has been made final, by a party who, having had time and the opportunity to appeal from the conditional order on which the final order was founded, has not appealed from that conditional order;".
	(3) In paragraph (g)(iv), after "matrimonial cause" insert ", a conditional order in a civil partnership cause".
	26 (1) Amend section 94A (withdrawal of privilege against incrimination of self or spouse in certain proceedings) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	(3) In subsection (3), for "married after the making of the statement or admission) against the spouse" substitute "married or became civil partners after the making of the statement or admission) against the spouse or civil partner".
	Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1039 (N.I. 9))
	27 In Article 22 (powers of inspectors), in paragraph (7), for "husband or wife" substitute "spouse or civil partner".
	Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1045 (N.I. 15))
	28 (1) Insert after Article 2(4)—
	"(4A) References in this Order to the formation of a civil partnership by a person include references to a civil partnership which is by law void or voidable."
	29 In Article 13 (grounds on which marriage is void), at the end of paragraph (1)(d) insert "or a civil partner".
	30 (1) Amend Article 17 (marriages governed by foreign law or celebrated abroad under certain enactments or common law) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph (1), at the beginning insert "Subject to paragraph (3)".
	(3) After paragraph (2) insert—
	"(3) No marriage is to be treated as valid by virtue of paragraph (1) if, at the time when it purports to have been celebrated, either party was already a civil partner."
	31 (1) Amend Article 30 (duration of continuing financial provision orders in favour of party to marriage, and effect of remarriage) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph (1)(a) and (b) after "remarriage of" insert ", or formation of a civil partnership by,".
	(3) In paragraph (2)—
	(a) after "remarriage of" insert ", or formation of a civil partnership by,", and
	(b) after "the remarriage" insert "or formation of the civil partnership".
	(4) In paragraph (3), after "remarries whether at any time before or after the commencement of this Article", insert "or forms a civil partnership".
	(5) In the heading to Article 30, after "remarriage" insert "or formation of civil partnership".
	32 In Article 37 (alteration of agreements by court during lives of parties), in paragraph (4)(a) and (b), after "remarriage of" insert ", or formation of a civil partnership by,".
	33 (1) Amend Article 40 (orders for repayment in certain cases of sums paid after cessation of order by reason of remarriage) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph (1)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (a), after "remarriage of" insert ", or formation of a civil partnership by,", and
	(b) in sub-paragraph (b), after "remarriage" insert "or formation of the civil partnership".
	(3) In paragraph (6)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (a), after "remarriage of" insert ", or formation of a civil partnership by,", and
	(b) in the words following sub-paragraph (b), after "had remarried" insert "or formed a civil partnership".
	(4) In the heading to Article 40, after "remarriage" insert "or formation of civil partnership".
	Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1908 (N.I. 27))
	34 In Article 8 (limitations on rehabilitation), in paragraph (2)(c), after "marriage," insert "civil partnership,".
	Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (c. 47)
	35 In section 47A (appeals in cases of death), in subsection (3)(a), after "widower" insert "or surviving civil partner".
	County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (S.I. 1980/397 (N.I. 3))
	36 In Article 10 (general civil jurisdiction), after paragraph (3) insert—
	"(3A) Except as provided by the Civil Partnership Act 2004, a county court which is not a civil partnership proceedings county court shall not have jurisdiction to hear any cause or matter to which that Act applies."
	37 In Article 14 (jurisdiction in equity matters), in paragraph (j), after "1882" insert "or section 186 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004".
	38 In Article 39 (capacity of parties), in paragraph (2)(d), after "marriage, death or bankruptcy of" insert ", or the formation of a civil partnership by,".
	Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (S.I. 1980/563 (N.I. 5))
	39 In Article 6 (duration of orders for financial provision for a party to a marriage), in paragraph (2)—
	(a) after "remarriage of" insert ", or formation of a civil partnership by,", and
	(b) after "the remarriage" insert "or formation of the civil partnership".
	40 (1) Amend Article 40 (orders for repayment in certain cases of sums paid after cessation of order by reason of remarriage) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph (1)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (a), after "remarriage of" insert ", or formation of a civil partnership by,", and
	(b) in sub-paragraph (b), after "that remarriage" insert "or the formation of that civil partnership".
	(3) In paragraph (8)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (a), after "remarriage of" insert ", or formation of a civil partnership by,", and
	(b) in the words following sub-paragraph (b)—
	(i) after "the remarriage" insert "or the formation of that civil partnership", and
	(ii) after "had remarried" insert "or formed a civil partnership".
	(4) In the heading to Article 40, after "remarriage" add "or formation of civil partnership".
	Judgments Enforcement (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/226 (N.I. 6)
	41 In Article 4 (judgments to which Order applies), in paragraph (e), after "1980" insert "or Part 1, 2 or 6 of Schedule 17 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004".
	42 In Article 6 (judgments to which Order does not apply), in paragraph (c), after "matrimonial jurisdiction" insert "or by the High Court or a civil partnership proceedings county court in the exercise of its civil partnership jurisdiction".
	43 In Article 7 (The Enforcement of Judgments Office), in paragraph (3), after "domestic" insert "or civil partnership".
	44 In Article 25 (taking custody of goods under a money judgment), in paragraph (2)(b), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	45 In Article 32 (property which may be seized), in paragraph (d), after "spouse" (in each place) insert "or civil partner".
	46 In Article 33 (property exempt from seizure), in paragraph (a), after "spouse" (in each place) insert "or civil partner".
	47 In Article 36 (where seizure may be effected), in paragraph (a)(i), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	48 In Article 38 (power of entry under order of seizure), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	49 In Article 44 (interpleader), in paragraph (1), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	50 (1) Amend Article 96A (maintenance orders in the High Court and divorce county courts) as follows.
	(2) In paragraphs (1), (3)(a), (7) and (9) after "divorce county court" insert (in each place) "or civil partnership proceedings county court".
	(3) In the heading to Article 96A, for "divorce" substitute "certain".
	51 (1) Amend Article 98 (power of courts to make attachment of earnings orders) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph (a)(i), after "matrimonial" insert "or civil partnership".
	(3) In paragraph (a)(ii), after "matrimonial jurisdiction" insert "or a civil partnership proceedings county court in the exercise of its civil partnership jurisdiction".
	52 (1) Amend Article 107 (committal for default) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph (1)(c), after "matrimonial jurisdiction" insert "or by the High Court or a civil partnership proceedings county court in the exercise of its civil partnership jurisdiction".
	(3) In paragraph (2)(a)(ii), after "matrimonial" insert "or civil partnership".
	Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/228 (N.I. 8))
	53 In Article 14(4) (resources of person's wife or husband treated as resources of that person), for "wife or husband" substitute "spouse or civil partner".
	54 In Part 1 of Schedule 1 (proceedings for which legal aid may be given), in paragraph 3(b), after "1998" insert "or Schedule 17 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004".
	Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/1675 (N.I. 26))
	55 In Article 85 (orders for periodical payment: means of payment), in paragraph (8)(a)(ii), after "1980" insert ", the Civil Partnership Act 2004".
	56 In Article 86 (revocation, variation, etc., of orders for periodical payment), in paragraph (1), after "1980" insert "and paragraph 42 of Schedule 17 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004".
	57 In Article 88 (nature of domestic proceedings), after paragraph (dh), insert—
	"(di) under paragraph 54 of Schedule 16 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 or under Schedule 17 to that Act;".
	58 In Article 98 (enforcement of orders for periodical payment of money), in paragraph (11)(i), after "1980" insert "or Schedule 17 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004".
	59 In Article 99 (enforcement of orders for payment of money other than periodical payments), in paragraph (11), after "1980" insert "or Part 1, 2 or 6 of Schedule 17 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004".
	60 In Article 143 (appeals in other cases), after paragraph (3) insert—
	"(4) Paragraph (1) is also subject to paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 17 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and Article 31(1) of the Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) 1980 as applied by paragraph 46 of that Schedule."
	61 In Article 164 (appearance by counsel or solicitor), in paragraph (3), for "husband, wife" substitute "spouse, civil partner".
	Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 (S.I. 1983/1120 (N.I. 13))
	62 In Article 10 (exemptions from liability for conspiracy), in paragraph (2)(a), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	Forfeiture (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (S.I. 1982/1082 (N.I. 14))
	63 In Article 5 (application for financial provision not affected by the forfeiture rule), at the end of paragraph (2)(b) insert "and
	(c) paragraphs 45 (variation of secured periodical payments order) and 58 (alteration of maintenance agreements by court) of Schedule 16 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004".
	Family Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 (S.I. 1984/1984 (N.I. 14))
	64 (1) Amend Article 18 (prohibited degrees of relationship) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph (1), for the words from "between a man" to "that Table" substitute "between a person and any person mentioned in the list in Part 1 of the following Table".
	(3) For the Table in paragraph (1) substitute—"
	"Part 1 Prohibited Degrees of Relationship Adoptive child
	Adoptive parent
	Child
	Former adoptive child
	Former adoptive parent
	Grandparent
	Grandchild
	Parent
	Parent's sibling
	Sibling
	Sibling's child
	Part 2 Degrees of Affinity referred to in Paragraphs (2A) and (2B)
	Child of former civil partner
	Child of former spouse
	Former civil partner of grandparent
	Former civil partner of parent
	Former spouse of grandparent
	Former spouse of parent
	Grandchild of former civil partner
	Grandchild of former spouse
	Part 3 Degrees of Affinity referred to in Paragraphs (2C) and (2D)
	Parent of former spouse
	Parent of former civil partner
	Former spouse of child
	Former civil partner of child".
	(4) In paragraph (2)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (b), for the words "brother or sister" substitute "sibling";
	(b) in sub-paragraph (c), after the word "marriage" insert "or civil partnership".
	(5) In paragraph (2A), for the words from "between a man" to "that Part II" substitute "between a person and any person mentioned in the list in Part 2 of that Table".
	(6) In paragraph (2C), for the words from "between a man" to "that Part III" substitute "between a person and any person mentioned in the list in Part 3 of that Table".
	(7) In paragraph (2D), for sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) substitute—
	"(a) in the case of a marriage between a person and the parent of a former spouse of that person, after the death of both the former spouse and the former spouse's other parent;
	(b) in the case of a marriage between a person and the parent of a former civil partner of that person, after the death of both the former civil partner and the former civil partner's other parent;
	(c) in the case of a marriage between a person and the spouse of a child of that person, after the death of both the child and the child's other parent;
	(d) in the case of a marriage between a person and the former civil partner of a child of that person, after the death of both the child and the child's other parent."
	Credit Unions (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (S.I. 1985/1205 (N.I. 12))
	65 (1) Amend Article 2(2) (interpretation) as follows.
	(2) After the definition of "board of directors" insert—
	""civil partner" includes former civil partner;".
	(3) In the definition of "member of the family"—
	(a) in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner", and
	(b) in paragraph (ii), for "a child born in wedlock" substitute "the legitimate child of the relationship in question".
	66 (1) Amend Article 17 (nomination to property in credit union) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph (2), after "wife," insert "civil partner,".
	(3) In paragraph (6)—
	(a) for "marriage of" substitute "formation of a marriage or civil partnership by";
	(b) after "before the marriage" insert "or civil partnership was formed";
	(c) for "a marriage contracted" substitute "the formation of a marriage or civil partnership".
	Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986/595 (N.I. 4))
	67 (1) Amend Schedule 1 (persons by whom a medical recommendation or medical report under Article 12 may not be given) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 3, after "spouse," insert "civil partner,".
	(3) In paragraph 4, after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986/1032 (N.I. 6))
	68 (1) Amend Article 10A (meaning of "offer to the public") as follows.
	(2) In paragraph (3)(a)(iii), for "widow or widower" substitute "surviving spouse or surviving civil partner".
	(3) In paragraph (6)(a), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	69 In Article 11 (employees' share scheme), in paragraph (b), for "wives, husbands, widows, widowers" substitute "spouses, civil partners, surviving spouses, surviving civil partners".
	70 In Article 211 (notification of family and corporate interests), in paragraph (1), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	71 (1) Amend Article 335 (extension of Article 331 to spouses and children) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph (1)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (a), after "wife or husband" insert "or civil partner", and
	(b) in the words following sub-paragraph (b), after "as the case may be," insert "civil partner or".
	(3) In the heading to Article 335, after "spouses" insert ", civil partners".
	72 (1) Amend Article 336 (extension of Article 332 to spouses and children) as follows.
	(2) In paragraphs (1)(a) and (2)(a), after "wife or husband" insert "or civil partner".
	(3) In paragraph (3)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (a), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner", and
	(b) in sub-paragraph (b), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner" and after "wife, husband," insert "civil partner,".
	(4) In the heading to Article 336, after "spouses" insert ", civil partners".
	73 In Article 354 (connected persons) in paragraph (2)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (a), after "spouse," insert "civil partner,",
	(b) in sub-paragraph (c), after "spouse" (in both places) insert "or civil partner".
	74 In Article 423E (associates), in paragraph (8) after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	75 In Schedule 7 (matters to be dealt with in directors' report), in paragraph 2B(3) (immediate family), after "spouse" insert ", civil partner".
	Enduring Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/1627 (N.I. 16))
	76 In Article 5 (scope of authority etc. of attorney under enduring power), in paragraph (5)(a), for "or marriage" substitute "marriage or the formation of a civil partnership".
	77 (1) Amend paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 (persons entitled to receive notice) as follows.
	(2) In head (a), after "wife" insert "or civil partner".
	(3) In head (e), after "widower" insert "or surviving civil partner".
	78 Paragraphs 76 and 77 apply in relation to the exercise of powers under enduring powers of attorney created before the passing of this Act as well as to those created on or after its passing.
	Matrimonial and Family Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/677 (N.I. 4))
	79 (1) Amend Article 16 (applications for financial relief after overseas divorce etc.) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph (2) (no application may be made after remarriage), for "remarries" substitute "forms a subsequent marriage or civil partnership,".
	(3) For paragraph (3) substitute—
	"(3) The reference in paragraph (2) to the forming of a subsequent marriage or civil partnership includes a reference to the forming of a marriage or civil partnership which is by law void or voidable."
	Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/2405 (N.I. 19))
	80 (1) Amend Article 4 (meaning of "associate") as follows.
	(2) For paragraph (2) substitute—
	"(2) A person is an associate of an individual if that person is—
	(a) the individual's husband or wife or civil partner,
	(b) a relative of—
	(i) the individual, or
	(ii) the individual's husband or wife or civil partner, or
	(c) the husband or wife or civil partner of a relative of—
	(i) the individual, or
	(ii) the individual's husband or wife or civil partner."
	(3) In paragraph (3), after "husband or wife" insert "or civil partner".
	(4) In paragraph (8), at the end insert "and references to a civil partner include a former civil partner".
	81 In Article 179 (proceedings under Article 177 and 178), in paragraph (3)(b), after "marriage" insert "or the formation of a civil partnership".
	82 In Article 286 (charge on bankrupt's home), in paragraph (1), after "former spouse" insert "or by his civil partner or former civil partner".
	83 (1) Amend Article 302 (debts to spouse) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph (1), after "spouse" (in each place) insert "or civil partner".
	(3) In the heading to Article 302, after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	84 In Article 305 (saving for bankrupt's home), in paragraph (1), after "former spouse" insert "or by his civil partner or former civil partner".
	85 In Article 312 (transactions at an undervalue), in paragraph (3)(b), after "marriage" insert "or the formation of a civil partnership".
	86 In Article 337 (inquiry into bankrupt's dealings and property), in paragraph (1)(a), after "former spouse" insert "or civil partner or former civil partner".
	87 In Article 367 (transactions defrauding creditors), in paragraph (1)(b), after "marriage" insert "or the formation of a civil partnership".
	Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12))
	88 (1) Amend Article 79 (compellability of accused's spouse) as follows.
	(2) In paragraphs (2), (2A) and (3), for "wife or husband" (in each place) substitute "spouse or civil partner".
	(3) After paragraph (5) insert—
	"(5A) In any criminal proceedings a person who has been but is no longer the civil partner of the accused shall be compellable to give evidence as if that person and the accused had never been civil partners."
	(4) In the heading to Article 79, after "accused's spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	89 In Article 79A (rule where accused's spouse not compellable)—
	(a) for "wife or husband" substitute "spouse or civil partner", and
	(b) in the heading, after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 (S.I. 1990/593 (N.I. 5))
	90 In Article 54 (meaning of "associate"), in paragraph (2)(a) after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (S.I. 1991/762 (N.I. 7))
	91 In Article 42 (continuance of registration or licence on death), in paragraph (2), for the words from "the deceased's personal representative" to "his death" substitute "the deceased's personal representative, or widow or widower or surviving civil partner or any other member of the deceased's family, until the expiration of—
	(a) the period of 3 months from the date of the deceased's death".
	Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 (S.I.1992/807 (N.I. 5))
	92 In Article 23 (recovery of sums awarded in proceedings involving trade unions and employers' associations), in the definition of "provident benefits" in paragraph (3), for "wife" substitute "spouse or civil partner".
	Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 (c. 49)
	93 In section 97E (discharge of liability where pension credit or alternative benefits secured by insurance policies or annuity contracts), in subsection (1)(b), after "or widower" insert "or civil partner".
	Family Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 (S.I. 1993/1576 (N.I. 6))
	94 (1) In Article 12 (family proceedings rules), amend paragraph (3)(g) as follows.
	(2) After "1978" insert "or a civil partnership cause within the meaning of section 185(3) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004".
	(3) After "that Article 48" insert (in both places) "that section 185(3)".
	(4) After "divorce county court" insert "or civil partnership proceedings county court".
	Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2))
	95 In Article 8 (residence, contact and other orders with respect to children), after paragraph (4)(h) insert—
	(i) Chapter 2 of Part 4 of, or Schedule 16, 17 or 18 to, the Civil Partnership Act 2004".
	96 In Article 50 (care orders and supervision orders), in paragraph (4), for "married)" substitute "married or a civil partner)".
	97 In Article 67 (powers to assist in discovery of children who may be in need of emergency protection), in paragraph (2), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	98 In Article 69 (recovery of abducted children, etc.), in paragraph (11), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	99 In Article 166 (appeals), at the end of paragraph (2)(b) insert "or
	c) where the county court is a civil partnership proceedings county court exercising jurisdiction under the Civil Partnership Act 2004 in the same proceedings".
	100 In Article 171 (self-incrimination), in paragraph (2), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	Trade Union and Labour Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1995(S.I.1995/1980 (N.I.12))
	101 In Article 125 (intimidation or annoyance by violence or otherwise), in paragraph (1)(a), for "wife" substitute "spouse or civil partner".
	Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/1919 (N.I. 16))
	102 In Article 85A (time off for dependants), in paragraph (3)(a), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
	103 In Article 248 (institution or continuance of tribunal proceedings), in paragraph (5)(b), for "widow or widower" substitute "surviving spouse, surviving civil partner".
	Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3159 (N.I. 23))
	104 In Schedule 1 (provisions to be included in rules of club), in paragraph 11, for "husband, wife" substitute "spouse, civil partner".
	Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/869 (N.I. 6))
	105 In Article 23(7) (exceptions: meaning of "near relative")—
	(a) after "spouse" (in both places) insert "or civil partner", and
	(b) for "by affinity)" substitute "by marriage or civil partnership)".
	Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/3162 (N.I. 21))
	106 In Article 30(7) (exceptions: meaning of "near relative")—
	(a) after "spouse" insert "or civil partner", and
	(b) for "by affinity)" substitute "by marriage or civil partnership)".
	107 In Article 69(3)(c) (interpretation: connected person), after "wife or husband" (in each place) substitute "or civil partner".
	Welfare Reform and Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/3147 (N.I. 11))
	108 (1) Amend Article 21 (supply of pension information in connection with divorce etc.) as follows.
	(2) After paragraph (1)(a)(i) insert—
	(ia) financial relief under Schedule 16 or 18 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (powers in relation to domestic and overseas dissolution of civil partnerships etc.);".
	(3) In paragraph (1)(a)(ii), after "1984" insert "or Schedule 6 or 8 to the 2004 Act".
	(4) In paragraph (1)(a)(iii), after "1984" insert "or Schedule 12 to the 2004 Act".
	(5) In paragraph (1)(b), after "(a)(i)" insert ", (ia)".
	109 (1) Amend Article 22 (charges by pension arrangements in relation to earmarking orders) as follows.
	(2) After paragraph (a) insert—
	(aa) an order under Part 1 of Schedule 16 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (financial provision orders in connection with dissolution of civil partnerships etc.) so far as it includes provision made by virtue of Part 5 of that Schedule (powers to include provision about pensions),".
	(3) At the end of paragraph (b) omit "or" and after that paragraph insert—
	(bb) an order under Part 1 of Schedule 6 to the 2004 Act so far as it includes provision made by virtue of Part 6 of that Schedule (England and Wales powers corresponding to those mentioned in paragraph (aa)), or".
	110 (1) Amend Article 25 (activation of pension sharing) as follows.
	(2) After paragraph (1)(a) insert—
	(aa) a pension sharing order under Schedule 16 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004,".
	(3) After paragraph (1)(b) insert—
	(ba) an order under Schedule 18 to the 2004 Act (financial relief in Northern Ireland after overseas dissolution etc. of a civil partnership) corresponding to such an order as is mentioned in paragraph (aa),".
	111 (1) Amend Article 31 ("implementation period") as follows.
	(2) In paragraph (1)(b)(i), omit "matrimonial".
	(3) In paragraph (2)—
	(a) omit "matrimonial", and
	(b) in sub-paragraph (b), after "divorce" insert ", dissolution".
	112 (1) Amend Article 45 (activation of benefit sharing) as follows.
	(2) After paragraph (1)(a) insert—
	(aa) a pension sharing order under Schedule 16 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004,".
	(3) After paragraph (1)(b) insert—
	(ba) an order under Schedule 18 to the 2004 Act (financial relief in Northern Ireland after overseas dissolution etc. of a civil partnership) corresponding to such an order as is mentioned in paragraph (aa),".
	Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/412 (N.I. 2))
	113 In Article 85 (meaning of exempt disposal), after paragraph (3)(d) insert—
	(e) Part 2 of Schedule 16 or 18 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004;."
	Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/413 (N.I. 3))
	114 (1) Amend Article 5 (power to require evidence) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph (3)(c), after "marital" insert "and civil partnership".
	(3) After paragraph (3) insert—
	"(4) In paragraph (3)(c), "marital and civil partnership status", in relation to a person, means whether that person has previously formed a marriage or a civil partnership, and if so, whether that marriage or civil partnership has ended."
	115 In Article 6 (objections), in paragraph (6)(b), after "married" insert "or a civil partner".
	Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/435 (N.I. 10))
	116 In Article 39 (conditional fee agreements: supplementary), in paragraph (2) (definition of "family proceedings"), after sub-paragraph (f) insert—
	(g) Chapter 2 of Part 4 of, or Schedules 16, 17 or 18 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004,".
	117 In Schedule 2 (civil legal services: excluded services), in paragraph 2(d)(i), after "1998" insert "or Schedule 17 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004".
	Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 (S.I. 2004/702 (N.I. 3))
	118 In Article 2(2) (interpretation), in the definition of "relative"—
	(a) in paragraphs (a) and (b), for "spouse or former spouse" substitute "spouse, former spouse, civil partner or former civil partner";
	(b) after "as husband and wife" insert "or as if they were civil partners";
	(c) after "married to each other" insert "or were civil partners of each other"."
	188 Schedule 29, page 382, line 12, at end insert— "Family provision: Northern Ireland
	
		
			  
			 Title and number Extent of revocation 
			 Inheritance (Provision forFamily and Dependants)(Northern Ireland) Order1979 (S.I. 1979/924 (N.I. 8)) In Article 5(2), "and"immediately following sub-paragraph (b). 
		
	
	Family homes and domestic violence: Northern Ireland
	
		
			  
			 Title and number Extent of revocation 
			 Family Homes and DomesticViolence (Northern Ireland)Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1071 (N.I. 6)) In Article 2(2), the definition of "matrimonial home rights". 
			  In Schedule 2, "or" at the end of paragraph 4(1)(a)." 
		
	
	189 Page 382, line 16, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Sex Discrimination (NorthernIreland) Order 1976 (S.I.1976/1042 (N.I. 15)) Article 3(4)." 
		
	
	190 Page 382, line 18, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Child Support Act 1991 (c. 48) In section 8(11), "or" at the endof paragraph (e). 
			 Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (S.I. 1991/2628 (N.I. 23)) In Article 10(11), "or" at the end of sub-paragraph (dd)." 
		
	
	191 Page 383, line 19, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Judicial Proceedings(Regulation of Reports) Act1926 (c. 61) Section 1(5)." 
		
	
	192 Page 383, line 20, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Theft Act 1968 (c. 60) In section 30(4), "or" at the end of paragraph (a)(i) to the proviso." 
		
	
	193 Page 383, line 24, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Courts and Legal Services Act1990 (c. 41) In section 58A, "and" at the end of subsection (2)(f). 
			 Family Law Act 1996 (c. 27) In section 64, "or" at the end of subsection (1)(c)." 
		
	
	194 Page 383, line 39, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 Title and number Extent of revocation 
			 Welfare Reform andPensions (NorthernIreland) Order 1999(S.I. 1999/3147 (N.I.11)) At the end of Article 22(b), "or". 
			  In Article 31(1)(b)(i) and (2), "matrimonial"." 
		
	
	"Minor and consequential amendments: Northern Ireland

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 83 to 194.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 83 to 194.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pensions Bill

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendment and reason be now considered.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT AND REASON

[The page and line references are to HL Bill 73, the Bill as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT

283 Clause 166, page 114, line 42, after "liabilities," insert—
	"( ) the likelihood of an insolvency event occurring in relation to the employer in relation to a scheme,"
	283A The Commons agree to this Amendment with the following Amendment—
	Line 2, at beginning insert "except in relation to any prescribed scheme or scheme of a prescribed description,"

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 283A to Lords Amendment No. 283.
	An amendment to Amendment No. 283 was tabled in the other place by the honourable Member for Northavon. The amendment followed NAPF concerns that the board would be required to undertake a complex and costly assessment of risk for small schemes which would be completely disproportionate to the amount collected. The amendment sought to enable the board to make exceptions to the rule requiring it to set a risk based levy for all schemes, and to set just a scheme based levy for small schemes with fewer than 100 members.
	I think we all agree that administrative burdens for the PPF and schemes should be kept to a minimum. However, we considered that the proposed amendment in the Commons was unsuitable primarily because, in order to meet the restrictions it would lay down, the board would still need to assess the insolvency risk posed by schemes—the very process we are seeking to avoid. In consequence, the other place agreed with Amendment No. 283 and made a further amendment to it. With your Lordships' consent we seek to exempt small schemes from the consideration of insolvency risk in setting the risk based levy. The board would still be required to impose a risk based levy on all schemes, but for small schemes only the board would have to consider only the level of underfunding.
	I could elaborate on that explanation. Primarily we think that this is fairly straightforward because the board would need a PPF valuation in any case. This valuation would give the board all the information it needed to establish underfunding risk. We do not think this would be a complex administrative task. We believe that it meets, so far as we can, the spirit of the original discussion in your Lordships' House. Therefore, we propose to amend the amendment offered in the other place by the honourable Member for Northavon. I hope that your Lordships will accept it.
	Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 283A to Lords Amendment No. 283.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Higgins: My Lords, it may be worth taking stock before we engage in the details of the individual amendments. We enter in effect a final sprint of what has most certainly been a marathon, with the prospect of a photo finish as we approach the finishing line of the Queen's Speech, and with some danger of a dead heat because unresolved matters still remain and there is some danger that one will lose the Bill. However, the prospect of going through the whole thing again in the next Session of Parliament is not one which I view with equanimity.
	The Bill arrived in this House in a deplorable state for the simple reason that the programming Motion in the other place had not given the Commons the opportunity to sort out many problems in the Bill before it arrived here. Noble Lords spent some 40 hours debating improvements to this Bill. We can look back with some satisfaction at the improvements that we have made. However, the Bill most certainly ought not to have arrived in this House in this state. There is a growing tendency for the other place not to scrutinise legislation and to leave it for us to do.
	What I considered quite sickening yesterday was the fact that the Minister in the Commons moved a programming Motion on the consideration of our amendments—which had been discussed for 90 hours in this place—to conclude the business within four hours and to split it up into individual chunks. Having moved that Motion, the Minister had the nerve to say, on the first debate which took place, that he could not give a proper answer due to shortage of time. This really is a totally unsatisfactory situation. It constitutes a growing danger that Parliament generally needs to take very carefully into account.
	When the Bill arrived from the Commons there were 248 clauses, 12 schedules and 235 pages. By 10 June it had grown to 310 clauses, 13 schedules, 316 pages and two volumes. By Third Reading it had grown to 326 clauses, 13 schedules and 366 pages, albeit still in two volumes. The growth of the Bill was quite extraordinary. Up to Third Reading 442 amendments were agreed in your Lordships' House. Many of them were amendments tabled by the official Opposition which the Government accepted, for example, the one tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes a few days ago. Indeed, the Government accepted one of the amendments on which we divided the House limiting the initial period in which the levy would be introduced. The Government accepted a number of other amendments which we shall discuss in a moment.
	As regards Amendment No. 283, and the related amendments, we suggested fairly late in the proceedings on the Bill that if there was a likelihood of an insolvency event occurring in relation to an employer, it should be a compulsory rather than optional factor to take into account when assessing the risk based nature of a scheme. I see that, while accepting that amendment, the other place has amended it slightly to read,
	"except in relation to any prescribed scheme or scheme of a prescribed description",
	which we can see very clearly means that almost anything can be done. However, what I believe is intended is to exclude small firms.
	I was initially of the view that all the schemes, of whatever size, should have both a scheme-based and a risk-based assessment. However, I am persuaded by the arguments put forward for excluding very small schemes. I welcome the amendment. It reflects the co-operative way in which the Bill has been handled throughout our proceedings. Together with the amendment, the change that the Government propose improves the Bill. I am glad that they have seen that it is the right thing to do.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, the last thing that I propose to do is to follow the noble Lord in an athletic metaphor. As he was a member of the British Olympic squad 50 years ago, I am sure that he could still outrun me by a great distance on that.
	We are obviously pleased that the Bill is now nearly finished, and that many of the amendments agreed in this place have been accepted in the other place. I would probably put the issue about timetabling and hours a little more positively than the noble Lord. I thank God for this place, and that we are able to spend the time and do the work and scrutiny that, for a variety of reasons, are not possible down the other end, particularly on a long and technical Bill of this sort.
	We are happy to accept the amendment, as in the case of a number of other amendments coming back from the Commons that substantially reflect what was proposed in this place.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

298 Clause 168, leave out Clause 168 and insert the following new Clause—"Amounts to be raised by the pension protection levies
	(1) Before determining the pension protection levies for any financial year after the initial period, the Board must estimate an amount which will reimburse as nearly as possible its total costs of administration and must determine the rate of scheme-based pension protection levy to raise that amount.
	(2) The Board must also estimate the further amount to be raised by the risk-based pension protection levy it intends to impose.
	(3) The Board must impose levies for a financial year in a form which it estimates will raise an amount not exceeding the levy ceiling for the financial year.
	(4) The risk-based pension protection levy must amount to at least 80% of the total amounts estimated to be raised by both levies.
	(5) The Board must notify the Secretary of State of its estimates and the levies it intends to impose at least three months before the beginning of each financial year in which those levies are to be imposed.
	(6) In order to vary these proposed levies, the Secretary of State must lay regulations before Parliament before the start of the relevant financial year.
	(7) For the first financial year after the initial period, regulations may modify subsection (3) so as to provide that the reference to the levy ceiling for the financial year is to be read as a reference to such lower amount as is prescribed.
	(8) For the second year after the initial period and for any subsequent financial year, the Board must impose pension protection levies in a form which it estimates will raise an amount which does not exceed by more than 25% the aggregate of the amounts estimated under subsections (1) and (2) in respect of the pension protection levies imposed for the previous financial year.
	(9) The Secretary of State may by order substitute a different percentage for the percentage for the time being specified in subsection (8).
	(10) Before making an order under subsection (9), the Secretary of State must consult such persons as he considers appropriate.
	(11) Regulations under subsection (7), or an order under subsection (9), may be made only with the approval of the Treasury.
	(12) In this section "risk-based pension protection levy" and "scheme-based pension protection levy" are to be construed in accordance with section 166."
	298A The Commons disagree with the Lords in their Amendment but propose the following Amendments in lieu—
	Page 116, line 17, leave out "levy or"
	298B Page 116, line 19, leave out "levy or"
	298C Page 116, line 20, leave out "a levy or"
	298D Page 116, line 23, leave out from "The" to end of line 24 and insert "pension protection levies imposed for a financial year must be"
	298E Page 116, line 25, leave out "50%" and insert "80%"
	298F Page 116, line 28, leave out subsection (4)
	298G Page 116, line 32, leave out "subsections (2) and (4)" and insert "subsection (2)"
	298H Page 116, line 36, leave out "a pension protection levy or"
	298I Page 116, line 39, leave out "levy or"
	298J Page 116, line 42, leave out paragraph (a)
	298K Page 118, line 38, leave out "and (4)"

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 298 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 298A to 298K in lieu thereof.
	The other place was concerned, first, that the intention of Amendment No. 298, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, seemed to be that the scheme-based pension protection levy should be used to collect administration costs of the PPF. We considered it essential that a clear distinction was drawn between the PPF income used to pay compensation and that used to cover administration costs. That approach is in accordance with the funding principles of other non-departmental public bodies.
	Secondly, the amendment required the Secretary of State to lay regulations before Parliament before any changes were made over the proposed levies that the PPF board should collect in any given year. We do not think it right that Parliament should have to approve changes to the amount collected through the levies. It is important that the PPF operates at arm's length, as we see from the experience of the problems faced in the States.
	Thirdly, the original amendment brought forward the restrictions on the levy ceiling and the 25 per cent rule controlling the amount collected, so it would have applied during the transitional period. Had the board been constrained in that way, its only option might have been to collect more than necessary to meet its liabilities for that year, in order that it was able to collect enough to meet its liabilities in subsequent years.
	In addition to those provisions, the new clause inserted by Amendment No. 298 also required that the amount to be collected by the board via the risk-based levy be raised to 80 per cent of the estimated total to be raised. That was the only aspect that we fully debated. We agree that risk is very important in setting the levies. We acknowledge the concerns raised on Report. As a result, the other place has agreed an amendment in lieu that meets the concerns of Opposition Peers that the board still be required to collect at least 80 per cent of the levies through the risk-based pension protection levy.
	I hope that we have now responded appropriately to noble Lords' concerns, and that they will not insist on the original Amendment No. 298, except in terms of the amendments in lieu, which meet the substantive point raised but clear up some of the minor and highly undesirable consequences.
	Moved, that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 298 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 298A to 298K in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Higgins: My Lords, we debated the issue at very considerable length at earlier stages of the Bill. The core of our concerns—it has had widespread support outside—was that the risk-based element of the way in which the levy was raised should be at least 80 per cent, subject of course to the amendment that we discussed a moment ago on small companies. We also felt that there were a number of other issues, such as to what extent the Secretary of State should be involved in the maximum amount of the levy.
	I am very glad that the essential item, on which we voted—the 80 per cent argument—has been accepted by the Government. In turn, I am prepared to accept the amendment agreed in another place to eliminate the other parts of the proposals, to which the Government objected. On reflection, they were probably right. I again welcome the fact that we have made progress in improving the Bill.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I am again delighted that the Government have responded to the concerns expressed from these Benches and the industry, and that we have an agreed and, I hope, workable solution.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

359 Before Clause 229, insert the following new Clause—"Removal of compulsion to take annuities
	Notwithstanding any statutory provision or rule of law to the contrary, the requirement for pensioners to take their pension in the form of an annuity, together with the requirement to do so by the age of 75, shall cease to have effect, provided that the pensioner can demonstrate that he has resources to ensure that he will not become dependent on means-tested benefits."
	359A The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	Because it would alter the area of taxation, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 359 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 359A. This is, so to speak, the "biggie" for today.
	The amendment relating to the removal of the requirement to annuitise by the age of 75 has been reversed in another place as it relates to financial matters, in which we in this place do not have a role to play in either initiating or amending. The amendment was rejected on several financial grounds, including that: it reduces the extent to which the member benefits from the income from the pension fund and therefore increases the amount of lost revenue; it allows a member who defers vesting to continue to make tax-privileged contributions to his pension fund until he draws an income; and, if the member dies and has not taken out an income from their pension pot, the pot reverts on a tax-free basis to their heirs. Removal of the restriction at the age of 75 extends that tax-free fund to everyone who has a personal pension pot.
	That is the thinking behind the statement that the other place disagrees to the amendment because it would alter the area of taxation. It deems that reason sufficient. We now have an amendment which proposes to increase to 85 the maximum age before which an annuity must be purchased.
	The intention of the amendment appears to be twofold. First, as championed on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, the effect would be to prevent people being forced to buy an annuity at a lower rate than they believe they might secure at a later date. Secondly, it would enable the privileged few who can afford to delay taking an annuity until 85 the possibility that their nominated representatives can inherit a tax-free lump sum which has in part accumulated as a result of generous tax relief.
	Annuity rates would certainly rise the later one took one's annuity. That is obviously true, because there is less lifespan to cover, but it is important to qualify it. If someone decides to start taking benefits from his pension savings, and instead delays buying an annuity and draws income from his fund, part of his fund remains invested. After a period, he could use the residual fund with any investment growth to buy an annuity at the rate then prevailing. In other words, he could time-shift when he had turned it into an annuity.
	However, the residual fund will need a strong growth rate if it is to allow pensioners to buy the same level of income as they could have achieved if they had bought an annuity when they first started drawing benefit from the fund. There are two reasons for that. First, the residual fund does not benefit from mortality cross subsidy until it is used to buy an annuity. The eventual annuity income of people who use drawdown gets less benefit from the early deaths of people born at the same time because less of their capital is ever pooled.
	Secondly, life expectancy increases with age. For example, a man of 65 might on average expect to reach 82, but if he survives to age 75, he can expect to reach 85. People between 65 and 75 who have early mortality have already died and as a result the life expectancy of those left floats upwards. As regards the implications for annuities, an Inland Revenue consultation document published some years ago suggested that those deferring annuity purchase at age 60 would need to receive returns on their unannuitised funds of 1 per cent above return on fixed interest securities to keep pace with the better returns they could receive from annuities.
	By age 85, this has gone up to around 10 per cent for men and around 7 per cent for women, so those not dying would have lost out from deferring. In passing, I should mention that these figures are based on the GAD projections for 2000, just in case I am suddenly challenged on them either in this House or in the press. However, it perhaps matters little because those deferring to the age of 85 are going to be the wealthiest to whom mortality drag matters less because their real focus is on tax planning.
	I now turn to a related statistical matter. Much to my disappointment, it has been suggested in this House, in another place, and in today's press—including the Times in a column I normally respect—that I have provided inappropriate statistical information on life expectancies to this House. I am surprised and disappointed that a more inquiring approach was not adopted, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, before he published the issue so widely, including in the press, because we are all aware—are we not?—that different statistical methodologies exist and that they are designed to serve different purposes.
	It may therefore be helpful to the House if I clarify the position for those who need clarification. I will support what I say both in written correspondence and by a technical statement which I will arrange to have placed in the Libraries of both Houses. However, and in a nutshell, the difference between the Pensions Commission figures that are being quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, which say that male expectancy is 19 years at 65, and the figure of 16 years quoted by me are entirely due to the common usage in this field of two different methodologies. I and I am sure your Lordships have used—and I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, is not aware of this—what is called the "period" measure of life expectancy, whereas the Pensions Commission has used the "cohort" measure.
	Period life expectancies are worked out using the age-specific mortality rates for a given period—either a single year or a run of years—with no allowance made for any later or projected changes in mortality.
	Cohort life expectancies are worked out using age-specific mortality rates which allow for known or projected changes in mortality in later years. It is a more dynamic approach, if I may use that phrase which was put to me.
	The approach I have used and the figures I gave in this House were based on the approach which the Government Actuary's Department describes on its website as being the one most regularly used, for example, in ONS publications such as Social Trends. The website states:
	"In most official statistics, period life expectancies are given".
	The Pensions Commission report states:
	"To some extent, the choice is expedient and reflects the nature of the data available".
	Furthermore, the data I gave was based on the approach adopted in the Pensions Green Paper published in December 2002. So the approach I used has been consistent, common, conventional and widely understood. More to the point, it is a measure that provides a life expectancy for the period immediately ahead, which I believe to be the most appropriate for the purpose of this debate.
	By contrast, the Pensions Commission chose the cohort measure because it is in the business of looking further ahead, which is what the Government asked it to do. By definition, the cohort figures I have explained will give a higher figure of life expectancy than the "period" measure.
	I hope that that explanation clarifies the matter of period and cohort life expectancy statistics. I never thought that I would need to explain it to your Lordships' House as I took it for granted that Members were sophisticated enough to be well aware of this distinction. It was a pity that I was not given the opportunity to do so before the debate about a serious technical issue was allowed to lapse into accusations of a "tendency to mislead" and of "conning the public", to which I personally take some exception as your Lordships will understand.
	I will make one further point. I have previously quoted period measures based on the 2001 GAD projections. There is no material difference between the period measure for 2001 and the 2003 projections. The 2003 GAD projections gives a period life expectancy for a 65 year-old as 16.3 years as opposed to my 16 years.
	As I stated, I will support what I have said tonight by correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, and by a written technical statement, but I hope that what I have said will now allow us to move on.
	I want therefore to go to the second effect of the amendment; that is, it will enable the privileged few who can delay taking an annuity until 85 the opportunity to leave the tax-free lump sum to their heirs. That lump sum has had the benefit of generous tax relief during the time it has accumulated. It has been said in this House and in another place that a 35 per cent tax would be levied on unspent funds when they are passed on to the member's estate. Let me clarify that this tax charge is applicable only where the member has used some of the funds by way of income drawdown. If a member has been in a financial position not to use his fund, he leaves the whole amount intact to his heirs, free of tax.
	Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that independent research carried out on behalf of the ABI clearly indicates that the vast majority of people purchase their annuity when they retire or well before they reach the age of 75. They need the money from the pension provided by the annuity to ensure that they have a regular income in retirement.
	It is also apparent that the only people who would benefit from deferring the purchase of annuity to age 85 are those who can afford to accommodate the loss of a regular income. They do that knowing that if anything happens to them before that date, their heirs would inherit a tax-free lump sum. Given that they can afford to be without that regular source of income, I would suggest that these are people with other forms of income, savings and resources on which they can rely.
	It was also suggested in another place by the honourable Member for Havant that my right honourable friend the Member for Croydon North suggested during the debate there that it now requires the purchase of a £250,000 annuity to keep clear of income-related benefits. That is not what he said. When Members were recycling the raiding of the Third Reading speech, having failed—perfectly reasonably—to consult the Report or Committee stages, they would have known that that was never argued in this House.
	I was arguing then, and was subsequently quoted as saying, that in terms of the range of annuity pot that would be required to float someone off income-related benefit, that could run anywhere between £120,000 and £250,000 according to the assumptions about the flat level, joint or single, and the level of increases in state benefits. I took £180,000, a figure common to most people as a guide, but I also went on to say that, given tax relief at 55 per cent on the rest, one would have to have a sum of well over £250,000 before one saw a clear advantage from all of this and had as a result a sum of £30,000 to leave to one's heirs. I argued, and continue to do so, that the number of people who would wish to lose the possibility of an annuity for such a sum would be very small; probably less than the 1 per cent who hold pots of that size.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Has she noticed that in the final paragraphs in col. 1235 of yesterday's Commons Hansard, immediately before a vote was taken on the issue that we are discussing, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and Mr Webb refer to the figure of 250,000, which we agree is the amount in pounds which would be sufficient to take someone off means-tested benefit? Malcolm Wicks then says:
	"Yes. The point is that we are talking about a quarter of a million people who are way above means-tested levels".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/11/04; col. 1235.]
	It is an indication of the total failure to comprehend what we are talking about that he should switch from a figure of £250,000 to a figure of 250,000 people.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that may well have been a typo, and I do not wish to comment on that. Typos can easily happen. I was just anxious—

Lord Higgins: My Lords, is the noble Baroness accusing Hansard of getting it wrong?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not know whether Hansard got it right or wrong, but I am confident that my honourable friend's brief at the other end would have been very clear about this. I am sure that someone either spoke in error or was misheard, and I do not wish to be drawn into the debate, however teasingly, by the noble Lord opposite.
	In good faith, I was trying to ensure that no one thought that I was saying at any stage—I do not think that your Lordships suggested this—that a person had to have £250,000 to be free of IRBs. The figure that we explored in much greater depth as the average within the range was nearer to £180,000.
	I am near to concluding but I wanted to address some important issues that were raised at the other end as well as in this House. I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the potential costs to the Exchequer of moving the age limit from 75 to 85. It could amount to tens of millions of pounds. There is around £14 billion in unused tax relief each year, and 50 per cent of tax relief goes to the wealthiest 15 per cent of pension savers. Even a swing of 5 per cent into pension saving driven by this raise in age could cost upwards of £250 million per annum—all for the benefit of the wealthy individuals who would be using the relief afforded to pension saving as a means of passing on an inheritance to their heirs.
	The UK has a long history of mandatory annuitisation of pension funds. The Finance Act 1994 increased to the current level of 75 the age by which an annuity must be purchased for occupational pension schemes. Personal pensions were introduced in July 1988 with an annuity ceiling of 75 years. In 1994, the average life expectancy for a male at age 65 was approximately 79 years. In other words, the expectancy was that people would potentially have four years to enjoy a stream of retirement income.
	In comparison, on the period tables as opposed to the cohort tables, the current life expectancy of a male at age 65 is 82 years. Accordingly, raising the age by which an annuity must be purchased to 85 would mean that the majority of people who deferred taking an annuity would not benefit from any form of income stream. They would die before making that decision. By keeping the limit at 75, we are potentially offering the 95 per cent of people who annuitise before the age of 70 a further six years in which to enjoy an extra stream of retirement income.
	Finally, at Third Reading, the noble Lord quoted the research into attitudes to annuities in the Watson Wyatt Worldwide study, which showed that people would prefer not to have to annuitise or to annuitise later. I think that that was repeated in the other place by the honourable Member for Havant, Mr Willetts. Again, I wonder whether the full findings might have been misquoted. The choice concerned whether to retain a lump sum of £100,000 and live off the interest or to use the £100,000 to buy an income of approximately £7,000 per year. However, what Mr Willetts did not share with us was that, of those who chose to annuitise, on balance there was a preference for annuitising earlier rather than later, the ratio being approximately 3:2 in favour. As that piece of research was quite heavily worked, I thought that it was worth seeking to contextualise it.
	In conclusion, we believe that the Government's position remains, which is why we ask the House, in due course, to reject the opposition amendment. First, the Government's position is fair to all. Secondly, we believe that the cost involved in the amendment would be unacceptable, and, thirdly, we should bear in mind the burden of responsibility that it would create.
	However, we recognise—this was said by my honourable friend in the other place—the underlying issues of greater longevity and demographic shifts in this country and, indeed, across the developed world, both of which have profound implications for the way that our pensions policies are put into effect. We are taking action through the Bill and in other ways to meet those and other challenges.
	We set up the Pensions Commission under Adair Turner to review the regime for UK private pensions and long-term savings. His first report, published last month, provides a mine of detailed and valuable information on the demographic challenges that we face. It is a singular fact that we are debating whether to preserve one of the few elements of compulsion in our pensions structure, but the Pensions Commission was set up specifically to consider the effectiveness of a voluntary approach to pensions and whether there is a case to move to greater compulsion.
	The commission is considering whether the level of compulsion within the UK pension system is appropriate. For people investing in a pension, the requirement to purchase an annuity at the age of 75, with a tax privileged saving, is a compulsory element of the existing system. Once the commission has reported on the wider issues relating to compulsory saving, the Government will wish to consider key issues, including annuitisation at the age of 75, with particular care and urgency and decide whether they remain fit for purpose.
	As a result of those remarks, I hope that your Lordships will feel able to reject the amendment which is to be moved in lieu and accept the original amendment as brought back from the Commons today.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 359, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 359A.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Higgins: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 359, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 359A, at end insert "but do propose Amendment No. 359B in lieu thereof":
	359B Before Clause 229, insert the following new clause—
	"AMENDMENT OF RULES TO TAKE PENSION ANNUITIES BY THE AGE OF 75 Any statutory provision or rule of law requiring a pension to be taken in the form of an annuity by the age of 75 shall be amended so that the age limit is 85."
	The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Baroness spent some time this evening discussing the proposal on drawdown implemented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a while ago. She did not, in fact, go into any detail on this during any of our previous discussions in Committee, on Report or at Third Reading. But what she said this evening confirms what we have always felt—that is, that this proposal is so complicated that it is unlikely to be taken up by many people, in the same way that the Chancellor's tax credits are not taken up. It cannot in any way be compared with the amendment which we originally tabled and which the Commons have now returned to us; nor, indeed, can it be compared with the simplicity of the amendment before us this evening. I start by taking up some points made by Mr Malcolm Wicks in another place in replying to the debate on these issues. It is interesting that the arguments that he put forward are not the same as those that the noble Baroness made this evening on the same points about privilege, and so on. In response to my earlier intervention, she said that he was reading out his brief. It may simply be that he has difficulty in reading out his brief. In any event, it cannot have been a misprint because his private office will have checked what he said and will have altered it only if there was justification for doing so. I want to take up the issue of privilege because the amendment has been returned to your Lordships' House in a slightly strange way. The arguments put forward by Mr Wicks in another place were as follows. He said that the Lords amendment, "allows annuities not to be paid where they might otherwise be paid". That has nothing whatever to do with privilege. He continued, saying that, "it extends tax relief by allowing more people in some circumstances to pass their tax privileged pension pot on to their survivors". In moving my amendment, which has now been returned from the Commons, I made it absolutely clear that we do not for one moment suggest that the proceeds of the pension pot should not be taxed in an appropriate way. So that point is totally invalid and Mr Wicks simply does not understand what was said. He went on to say that, "it allows in some circumstances for contributions to be made to pension schemes beyond the age of 75". It is possible to do so anyway, and so I have no idea why he said that. He then added that, "it reduces the instances when part of the tax relief given to contributions is recouped when an annuity is paid, and so on.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/11/04; cols. 1220-21.] That, again, is not the same as the argument which the noble Baroness put to us this evening. None the less, despite the curiosity of the arguments put forward by Mr Wicks, the Commons have returned the matter to us with a claim of privilege. We know what happens at the other end. If a particular issue is discussed and debated and if the Commons disagree with your Lordships' House, a committee is set up which retires to a little room behind the Speaker's Chair—I see the look of familiarity on the face of the noble Lord who is sitting behind the Minister—and they cook up some reasons. Strangely enough, the reasons often bear little resemblance to the debate that has taken place. The committee is chaired by the Minister in charge of the Bill. As I understand it, the normal form of words is that the amendment is rejected because it would involve a charge on public funds. The Commons do not offer any further reasons, trusting that that reason may be deemed sufficient. That is to say, they claim privilege. However, the form of words for this amendment is not conventional. It says: "Because it would alter the area of taxation, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason". Privilege is dependent on two things: ways and means, which is taxation, on the one hand, or the issue of supply, which is public expenditure, on the other. We are not allowed to interfere in those matters. It is put too broadly in the rather curious and unprecedented words—at least I cannot find a precedent form that is used in the amendment returning from the Commons—that it would alter the area of taxation. The House passes many Bills that alter the area of taxation and on which no claim of privilege is made.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord can explain a point. What economists call tax expenditures—for example, tax reliefs—are precisely the same as a form of taxation.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, as I am trying to explain, that is not what we are doing in the amendment that has been returned by the Commons. More particularly, it is certainly not applicable to the amendment that we are now discussing.
	When we discussed the original amendment, which has now been returned, I distinguished between whether there should be a requirement to take an annuity and whether it should be compulsory to take it at the age of 75. I have put forward the arguments in the Watson Wyatt report and I do not in any way retract from what I said, despite the remarks made by the noble Baroness. From that report, it is very clear that 58.8 per cent would prefer not to take it as annuity at all and 12.1 per cent would prefer to take it later.
	That side of the argument raises all kinds of issues which we have been discussing. I understand that the Commons are not prepared to accept it. For that reason, I have tabled an amendment on the second leg of the argument; namely, that instead of being compelled to take it at age 75, they should be able to take it up to the age of 85. It will be clear to your Lordships that that is a compromise. It is not what I want, as I would have preferred the original amendment. None the less, it deals with substantial problems that arise in relation to the present arrangement.
	Many people object to the fact that they are required to take an annuity at a particular moment in time. Instead of being able to exercise their discretion about whether to take it at a certain point or later, when they may believe that annuity rates will go up, they are prevented from doing so. That particularly concerns those approaching the age of 75 at the moment. I regret to tell your Lordships that I am not in that category.
	The important point is that life expectancy has undoubtedly risen. That is not in dispute. It is interesting to look at the history of the matter. As far as we can establish, the argument for taking one's pension pot in the form of an annuity dates back as far as 1921. In 1956, the age of 70 was established. Very interestingly, in 1976, only 20 years later, it was raised from 70 to 75. It is a long time since 1976, a longer time than elapsed before the previous increase. It seems not unreasonable to suggest that the time has come for the age to be raised to 80. That would mean that many people would have discretion to delay taking their annuity, if they wished to do so.
	I shall make one point absolutely clear. The original amendment is established Conservative policy, and we shall bring it in as soon as we come into office—I believe in a comparatively short time. That is our clear position, and that is what we want to go for. None the less, there is a case for raising the limit now to help those approaching 75, and the amendment would do that.
	On life expectancy, the noble Baroness referred to a letter, a copy of which the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, was courteous enough to send to me. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, he also sent a copy to the press and she did not have an opportunity to make it clear whether she had or had not misled the House, as the noble Lord suggested. That was unfortunate. It was not in line with the way in which we would normally behave in this House. It would have been better if the noble Lord had waited for a reply before going public on the issue. The argument that the noble Baroness has put forward this evening for why she quoted the figure, and why she does not believe it was misleading, is very technical. We wait to see what point the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, makes in response to what she has said. What is beyond doubt is that life expectancy has risen, which strongly supports the Motion that I am moving as a response to the Commons rejection of the amendment that we originally proposed in another place.
	I have a couple more points. First, the noble Baroness says that the amendment will help only the rich. We reject that view. We do not believe that the amendment, or the other one, helps only the rich. Many people, who perhaps have retired, have more than one pension arrangement and have not cashed in—and may not now wish to cash in—their pension pots. However, they are not necessarily well off at all, but they may have kept a little in reserve and want to cash it in when they think that the moment is right. They would be helped by our original amendment, and they would be helped by what I now propose. They are not in any way only the privileged few—a slightly pejorative expression that the noble Baroness has used. A discussion took place in the other place about how many pensions individuals might have, but I shall not go into that issue.
	In her closing remarks the noble Baroness said that we had had a marvellous report from Turner. It set out the arguments very clearly, but I do not believe there was much that was new either to the noble Baroness, myself or to many noble Lords. It is inconceivable that Mr Turner could succeed in thinking up any argument on this issue that we have not heard already. I cannot believe that he is so original in his methods of thinking that he would be able to do that. We know all the arguments on the issue. I believe that they support the amendment that I have pleasure in moving. I very much hope that the House will accept it. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 359, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 359A, at end insert "but do propose Amendment No. 359B in lieu thereof".—(Lord Higgins.)

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, let me start by making it clear that noble Lords on these Benches support the amendment. If we had been able to do so, and it were not a Motion which could carry only one signature, we would have put our names to it.
	I shall return in a moment to the short substantive reasons why we support the amendment. Clearly, in view of the noble Baroness's opening remarks I should say a few words on that topic. I am sorry that I upset her with the points I made and with my questioning on this final area of disagreement after we all agreed that after Third Reading the Bill generally left this House much improved by the efforts on all sides.
	I want to make it clear that there is a wide discrepancy between the figures the noble Baroness gave and those in the Turner report. The Turner report says—and I will explain how this came about—that it took the Government Actuary's 2002 base projections as its base case assumptions. It then points out that by 2004 the Government Actuary's department—that is what Turner is talking about; it is not something it has dreamt up—said that life expectancy at 65 would be 14.8 years and that today it is believed to be 19 years. That is what I was basing my figures and my request on.
	Obviously, in normal circumstances if we had been in Grand Committee or something like that and there was no time pressure, one would wait. However, as soon as I read the noble Baroness's remarks in Hansard I rang up her private office. I was told what her figures had been based on. In particular, let me point out—and I shall be interested when we get the technical notes; we do not want to go into too much detail today—that office said to me quite clearly that the figures she had given me were based on a 2001 projection of 16 years, even on the basis that she prefers. I said, "Please send me any more information if you can".
	However, in the situation we were in, with the matter coming up in the House of Commons in the afternoon, it was exceptionally important that we got our position across and on the record and also that my honourable friend Steve Webb was able to raise the matter.
	I listened carefully to the Minister. She said that life expectancy at 65 is now 82. Is it not the case that, even on her own basis, life expectancy is now 17 years and not 16 years? So, obviously to that extent we would welcome a correction.
	We support the substance of the amendment. Clearly, the exact level at which one puts the cap depends to some extent on what view one takes of life expectancy. But the principle of a substantial increase on 75 is incontrovertible, whichever life expectancy rate increase one prefers.
	I have some sympathy with the arguments expressed both in this and the other House by the Government on the question of who will benefit. It is not only rich people who will benefit. But I think that we should accept that on balance this will be of more benefit to better-off people. That does not mean that just because people are better off they should not be treated fairly and that the rules for them should not reflect major changes in life patterns and life expectancy.
	So, even accepting that, we believe that this is a sensible amendment. The time is long overdue, if not for this restriction to be abolished, at least for it to be substantially increased. On that basis, we strongly support the amendment.

Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, I was fascinated by the Minister's concluding paragraphs—if I heard them aright. After spending about nine-tenths of her time explaining why her mind was set absolutely against this proposal, she gave herself a let-out clause—an escape hatch, as it were. She finished by saying that she recognised that this was one of the few elements of compulsion in the pension scene. She recognised all the arguments about life expectancy and longevity and that if the Pensions Commission came back with different arguments in favour of it that she would be prepared to look at that.
	Of course, all that was based simply on the increase in life expectancy. We know that already. We do not need to be told that by the Pensions Commission. So I think that the Minister was giving herself a little bit of an escape hatch, but actually we do not need it; we know already.
	I want briefly to make three points in support of the amendment. First, the Minister spent some time saying—and certainly she is correct for many people—that over the piece one would have better returns from taking the annuity earlier rather than waiting until a much later age. That is not the point. In many cases that would be true and many people would be advised to do that. But it is not for the Government to say that; it is for individuals to make their own decisions on these matters. There is a question of choice here, to which my noble friend Lord Higgins referred in his speech when winding-up the other day. I entirely agree that it is a very important element in this argument.
	Secondly, the Minister talked a great deal about avoiding inheritance tax as a result of raising the age to 85 or removing the requirement altogether. I have to say that in the vast majority of cases the inheritance tax would be 40 per cent on those sums if they were passed on and not consumed during the person's lifetime. So there is a tax taken at the end of the day in return for the tax benefits that are gained from making the contributions to the personal pension in the first place.
	Finally, I want to make one point about the current age cut-off. In our last debate the Minister made the point, quite fairly, that interest and annuity rates are lower now. The annuity rates are lower partly in response to low inflation. So, if low inflation continues people are not particularly worse off from having lower interest rates.
	That argument is based entirely on the supposition that inflation rates will remain where they are. I challenge anyone to suggest that that will necessarily be true. So what about the situation where somebody aged 73 has to take out an annuity at a very low annuity level because of low interest rates and four years later finds that inflation starts to move ahead substantially again? That would have been a wrong decision to make, forced by the compulsion of taking an annuity at the age of 75. I think that that is a very good reason for raising the age barrier from 75 to give people the individual choice. That is why I strongly support the amendment.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I shall certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in the Division Lobby tonight. Perhaps I may tentatively suggest to him that, assuming he wins and the other place rejects his amendment, it would be sensible to compromise tomorrow by splitting the difference and proposing an age of 80 for the compulsory taking out of annuities.
	The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, believes that people are living a full six and a half years longer on average than was forecast when the annuity rules were first framed. The noble Baroness at one point seemed to suggest that it was three and a half years and at another point that it was six years, but one way or another it is certain that there is increased longevity compared to a couple of decades ago.
	If you average out those forecasts they come to a little over five years. So I think that there really can be no excuse for not raising the age to at least 80.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I will be very brief. I know that there is other, even more urgent business awaiting your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised two points, of which the substantive one was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor. The first point was the point of privilege. The noble Lord has experience of the other place that I do not. I can only tell him what I understand to be the situation. As I understand it, privilege includes the extension of tax relief, which is the effect of the noble Lord's amendment and which is therefore interfering with financial arrangements. I am therefore assured that, on the grounds that I cited—this is not to argue against the noble Lord's amendment, but on the grounds for rejecting the original amendment—privilege therefore applies. However, like others, I am now reading my brief on that point.
	On the substantive point, which the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, also made, pension provision is voluntary. No one has to save in a pension pot through a money purchase scheme if he chooses not to do so. Indeed, many people today are going for buy-to-let and other arrangements. If they choose to save in a pensions pot, they understand that they will be required to annuitise but, in order to attract people to that pension pot knowing that they will be required to annuitise, they will enjoy the benefits of tax relief that effectively roll-up in value to something like 55p in the pound. Having chosen that pension pot—there was no compulsion—they then, having attracted the tax relief that has artificially inflated that pension pot courtesy of taxpayers, normally with far lower incomes than they and often without themselves having an occupational scheme, want to turn it into both a savings draw-down account and a potential legacy.
	My argument is that basically, if people enter a pension pot arrangement, they know what the rules are and that, as a result, they attract extremely generous tax relief that other sections of society do not attract. If, instead, they want not to turn it not into an annuity, but into a savings pot or a legacy, they have other vehicles with which to save, ranging from property to fine art and fine wine: take your choice. We do not have to seek to deform—I use the word advisedly—an annuity arrangement in order to ask it to do other things.
	There may be a philosophical difference between us on this, but that is the Government's position. People entered that arrangement voluntarily. Having done so and attracted hugely generous tax relief, they now seek to change the original contract, so to speak, with the taxpayer under which they entered an annuity arrangement. I understand the argument about longevity, and so on. We can argue about that. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, I understand that the difference between 2001 and 2003 is 0.3 years but, as I said, we will tease that out in some of the technical papers.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, is life expectancy on that basis, as both she and Mr Wicks yesterday at the other end of the Corridor appeared to say, 17 years or 16?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as I said, it is 0.3 years extra. The figure for 2001, on which I drew originally, gave a life expectancy of 16 years for men at the age of 65. The figure for 2003, two years later, has become 16.3. I said just now that it was 0.3 years extra and have now spelt that out in detail. That is on the same basis of the period of life expectancy.
	I return to the original point. We cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment, or even the so-called compromise being offered from other Benches. Our position rests that we believe that the arrangements for annuities now are very generous in tax privilege terms. Between the ages of 50 and 75, people must take their annuity pot. Of course people would like low inflation and high annuity rates. Would not we all? But we know that that is not the world in which we live. Of course annuities are pooled risk but, at the end of the day, a pension pot and the requirement to annuitise was a contract voluntarily entered in to and then greatly enhanced by taxpayers, some of whom will be much worse off than those benefiting from those arrangements. We have not yet heard any arguments that suggest that we should disturb that arrangement.
	If the Adair Turner commission reports differently, the Government will obviously take that into account. As I made clear in my statement, we will consider any of its recommendations with care and urgency. Your Lordships would not expect me to go beyond that: I do not know what it will recommend and cannot predict what our response would be to any recommendations that it may make. To suggest that we are somehow denying choice to people when their original choice was made to enter a pension arrangement and therefore an annuity is unreasonable. I hope that, with that explanation of our philosophy—that we believe that what we are arguing is fair and reasonable and that we do not think it right to deform the original intention of that pension contract, which was designed to ensure a secure income in retirement—your Lordships will reject the amendment.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I shall make only two points. First, I do not believe that the amendment alters—that is the crucial word—tax relief. Secondly, it is right that we should press for a change to the age of 85. Given that all the legislation—and this Bill is at the end of the queue—is right up against the buffers, I very much hope that when the Bill goes to another place, it will accept that an amendment of this sort is appropriate. We have deployed nearly all the arguments; I do not intend to repeat them now. I seek to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 359B) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 207; Not-Contents, 136.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

416 Clause 274, page 207, line 26, after "payments" insert "entirely from public funds with no charges, levies or contributions to be made by the private sector"
	416A The Commons disagree with the Lords in their amendment but propose the following amendment in lieu—
	Page 209, line 5, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "(4A)   Regulations under subsection (1) may not make provision for the imposition of a levy or charge on any person for the purpose of funding, directly or indirectly, the financial assistance scheme."

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 416 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 416A in lieu thereof.
	There is no difference between us on this issue. The Government have always made it clear that we have no plans to fund the financial assistance scheme through a compulsory levy or charge on the private sector. When the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, asked me about the matter I gave my assurances and he courteously accepted them. However, noble Lords wanted the provision included in the Bill by virtue of an amendment.
	Although we accept the spirit of the amendment, in the Commons yesterday my colleague moved a new amendment to stand in lieu of the one agreed here on Report. It makes it explicit that regulations made under Clause 287 may not impose a levy or charge on anybody for the funding of the financial assistance scheme. However, the amendment does not rule out voluntary contributions to the fund. That is the only difference. I cannot see how noble Lords could object to such a scenario, however far-fetched they try to tell us it might be—I suspect that that will be their line. I hope that, as a result, noble Lords will be content with Amendment No. 416A and support the reasoning of the other place.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 416 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 416A in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Higgins: My Lords, we are content.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, so are we. We were content in Grand Committee and we are content now.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

417 Page 207, line 27, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "(   )   Payments made under this section shall be made to eligible scheme members regardless of their income or capital." 
		
	
	417A The Commons disagree with the Lords in their amendment but propose the following amendment in lieu—
	Page 209, line 5, at end insert—
	"(4B) Regulations under subsection (1) may not require any income or capital of a qualifying member of a qualifying pension scheme (other than income or capital which derives, directly or indirectly, from that scheme) to be taken into account when determining whether the member is entitled to a payment under the financial assistance scheme or the amount of any payment to which the member is entitled.
	(4C) For the purposes of subsection (4B), regulations may prescribe the circumstances in which a qualifying member of a qualifying pension scheme is to be regarded as having income or capital which derives, directly or indirectly, from that scheme."

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 417 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 417A in lieu thereof.
	Yesterday, the other place agreed to an amendment that makes a distinction that we wanted to draw in this House. It provides that the financial assistance scheme may take into account any capital or income which derives from the qualifying pension scheme of which the person was a member. But it also ensures that the financial assistant scheme must not take into account any other income or capital that is not linked to the pension scheme in question.
	I could go on but I realise that there is other business. With that brief description, I hope that your Lordships will accept the reasoning of the other place that the new amendment meets your Lordships' concern.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 417 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 417A in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Higgins: My Lords, this is a redraft of the amendment that we voted on earlier. We are happy that the Government have accepted it. The late Iain Macleod, when I first arrived on the Front Bench, gave me some good advice. He said, "However brilliant the speech is that you were going to make, if you listen to the House and they are all talking to each other, shut up".

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, we support this amendment. When one has what one wants, one does not go on arguing.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hunting Bill

A message was brought from the Commons, That they have disagreed to the amendments made by the Lords to the Hunting Bill to which they assign reasons.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons be considered forthwith.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO LORDS AMENDMENTS

[The page and line references are to HL Bill 112, the Bill as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT

1 Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after "is" insert—
	"(a) registered, or
	(b)"
	1A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is undesirable to permit registered hunting.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A. For the convenience of the House, I, and probably other speakers, will wish to address the other Motions with which it is grouped; that is, all the Motions on the Marshalled List apart from Amendments Nos. 46, 46A, 46B and 46C.
	I think that we all know where we are. I have consistently told the House that it needs to take account of the strength of feeling in the other place and that that feeling would be exacerbated were this House not to move at least some distance into a compromise position.
	We are now in the position where the Commons has rejected the suggestion from the Lords. As expected, the amendments which were sent to the Commons by your Lordships were not acceptable. By envisaging allowing deer hunting and hare coursing, broadening the scope of the utility test and proposing an unrealistic commencement provision, this House in effect has disregarded what were already clearly the Commons' expressed concerns.
	Had this House adopted another course last week or if the package of measures proposed by my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, I do not know how far that would have changed the view but at least it would have gone further towards the Commons' position than the amendments that were moved yesterday in the Commons. In the event, they were not accepted.
	It is clear that many Members of the other place see the failure here to engage properly last year, and the whole history of this proposal, as simply being an intransigent defence of deer hunting. In those circumstances, they have insisted once again on the Bill which is, in effect, a ban on fox hunting, deer hunting and other non-exempted forms of hunting.
	However justifiable, we are now in a position where your Lordships have thrown out the baby with the bath water and we are in a directly confrontational situation. As I said in the gentlest possible terms the other night, we bear some responsibility for that situation.
	The position now is that I can see no realistic prospect of the Commons agreeing to the batch of amendments tabled today. By proposing to return to them, and not moving at all from them, we are still on the path of confrontation. I suspect that those noble Lords who moved those amendments will not be swayed by my arguments, so I shall not prolong them.
	One set of amendments does not entirely fall within that category; namely, those standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I regret that the other night when I excepted the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, from my general less than complimentary remarks about other contributions at Third Reading and this Bill do now pass, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, had also made a constructive suggestion which, effectively, proposed an exemption for the uplands.
	That, again, is tabled today. However, in the present circumstances, whatever the merits of the exemption might have been in different circumstances—I believe that it had some—propositions which exempt a significant amount of hunting from the general provisions of the Bill are not likely at this late stage to receive a great deal of support in the Commons.
	Indeed, there are other problems with the noble Lord's amendments, which effectively give the Secretary of State fairly wide-ranging powers, which it would normally be the inclination of this House to reject, in terms of either increasing a large number of exemptions or of, effectively, moving to a registration system by the back door.
	I do not think that that would be acceptable to the House even were we in a more rational negotiating position. The fact is that we are not in that position. Your Lordships now have to consider whether simply to throw back the Bill that the Commons has already rejected or whether, in effect, we accept the Commons' position. Behind all that is clearly the prospect of the Parliament Act being automatically triggered if we reject the Commons disagreements with the last position of this House.
	I suggest that we do not insist on those amendments and that we agree with the Commons at this late stage in our proceedings.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.—(Lord Whitty.)

Baroness Mallalieu: rose to move Amendment No. 1B, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A, leave out "not".

Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1B. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 2B to 44B and 47B to 54B standing in my name.
	The purpose of all of those amendments is to insist on the compromise registration Bill, which this House voted for so overwhelmingly during the various earlier stages. In the case of those amendments, that is to be achieved in almost every case by seeking to omit the word "not" from the question,
	"that this House do not insist on its Amendment".
	I should briefly point out that Amendments Nos. 10C, 12C and 52C, because they involve financial provisions, on the advice of the Clerks, have minor changes that are tactically necessary in order to restore the Bill. They are therefore described as amendments in lieu.
	I should also mention the technicality in relation to Amendment No. 45. That is a money amendment. I am told that there are no means by which the House can reinstate this provision after its rejection by the Commons. If, notwithstanding what the Minister has just said, the Commons should agree to our Bill when it returns to them, I alert the Minister to the need for a consequential amendment to reinstate that clause.
	As we know, the Commons voted to restore what has become known as the Banks Bill, although it is of course a government Bill that was introduced by a government Minister. I ask the House to consider whether it is right, even at this stage and given what the Minister has said, that this House should support a Bill which is rank bad. At no point during its passage through this House has the Minister even tried to say one word in defence of its provisions. That was the case at Second Reading and at every stage thereafter. Its foundations are naked prejudice and wilful ignorance. It is without rationality, without principle, and it runs counter to all the evidence gathered so painstakingly at the Government's own inquiries.
	A Bill which allows terrier work to continue lawfully in order to protect a pheasant or a partridge but not to protect a lamb or a curlew, which allows the hunting of rats but not mice, rabbits but not hares; which destroys jobs, loses people their homes, divides communities and the nation, and does economic damage particularly in the most fragile rural economies—and does so without compensation; a Bill which has unquestionably adverse animal welfare implications, not only for the quarry species but also for the 20,000 hounds which will be redundant and, on the strong advice yesterday from the British Horse Society, a charitable organisation, countless horses as well, is a bad Bill for people and for animals. I cannot believe that Members in another place who celebrated so joyfully last night's vote have any inkling of the suffering and distress that what they have done will cause.
	If the Minister is right, this Bill seems to be heading for the statute book. But it is a Bill that has never had detailed scrutiny either in this place or in the other place, either on the last occasion or on this one, and that lack of scrutiny shows. It is a Bill which also almost certainly does not comply with the Human Rights Act.
	Last night it did not have the support of the leader of any one of the three main political parties. It does not have the support of Parliament as a whole. At Second Reading in this House it did not even have the support of a majority of Labour Peers. This is the worst sort of gesture politics. Worst of all, a Bill like this is bad for democracy because the criminalisation of a minority by an elected majority for no compelling reason is an abuse of democracy.
	If this Bill becomes an Act by unjust means, I predict that it will come to grief, and perhaps do so much sooner than any of us currently envisages. It cannot and will not provide a lasting solution to this issue, but it can and will cause serious damage to the fabric of what remains of our country communities and our wildlife. Above all, it will do inestimable damage to the reputation of our Parliament.
	This House should have nothing of it. This House should insist on returning a reasonable compromise, not lunacy. For that reason, I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A, leave out "not".—(Baroness Mallalieu.)

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise to repeat a phrase that has been used more than once during these debates: everything that can be said has been said, but not by everyone. I believe that everything has been said by everyone. Few fresh arguments can be deployed, but I had intended to sit here and acquiesce in what I know is the will of the House of Lords and allow these amendments to pass. But when, in her speech, my noble friend Lady Mallalieu talked about naked prejudice, wilful ignorance and lunacy, I align myself with my colleagues in the other place who had the courage and the guts to stand by their convictions.
	Over the past few weeks a great deal has been said in this Chamber about integrity, compassion and rightfulness. Those attributes do not belong to one side of the argument. They belong to people who share my view both here and in another place. I think it is deplorable that the arguments being deployed in favour of the continuation of hunting have had to rely on scurrilous language of the worst possible kind. In the main, it has come from that side of the Chamber over to this side.
	My colleagues in the other place, who have been dreadfully maligned more than once, have had the courage of their convictions in the knowledge that what they have said they believe in will be tested more than any other issue in their constituencies at the next election. Therefore I take great offence at the manner in which individual Members of Parliament who stood their ground in 1997, in 2001 and remained firm against repeated pressure last night have been referred to. They are ordinary Members of Parliament.
	I have been in Westminster for 30 years, for 10 years in the other House and for 20 years here. I have been in a minority more often than in a majority, simply because of the change in the complexion of governments. I say this to the House: it ill becomes this House, having a point of view which has been expressed and repeated, to go down the road of denigrating the wisdom, integrity and honesty of purpose of colleagues down the other end.
	So far as I am concerned, I intend to vote against the proposition that we should send this Bill back to the other place. I shall explain why. It would be easy to accept the fact that any vote here will be overwhelmingly in favour of hunting, but I believe that my colleagues in the Commons and in the country at large need to know—not the size of that majority; they already know it—that there are still people in this House who, like me, are prepared to stand up and be counted.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I shall speak for a few minutes to the further amendments that I have tabled. The first concerns what will happen if the Bill we are considering goes on to the statute book in the form in which it left the Commons. If it does not work out, it seems to me that the Government may well be in a corner from which they cannot escape without primary legislation.
	The Bill currently favoured by the other place is a general banning Bill, but not a universal banning Bill. There are exemptions that permit hunting with dogs, but they cannot be extended if circumstances turn out to demand it. My amendment provides for the Government to have that power through secondary legislation. It is specified that the power should be restricted to two years, so it is not a Trojan horse for a subsequent government to turn the whole piece of legislation on its head.
	I have brought forward this matter because it emerges from points that I raised during the passage of the Bill, but given the current febrile political atmosphere—I am most grateful to the Minister for his kind remarks and for his guidance—I offer it to him now because I think that the Government may have drawn Schedule 1 too tightly to be able to deal satisfactorily with events as they might develop. While this is a free vote, the Government will be responsible for what flows from it.
	I have also tabled an amendment about fell hunting, about which I have spoken at length. The amendment once again draws a distinction between cases where hunting is the only responsible way of managing foxes and those others where it may be merely the best or most desirable way. Despite disagreements over the detail, no one has objected to the general thrust of my argument, and no one here has produced any alternative that deals properly with the problems faced by the uplands.
	Those communities and the people who live in them are small minorities in this country who have the misfortune now to find that they themselves and their proper, legitimate way of life and business, which are so very much admired, respected and supported right across the country, are caught up in a much wider political wrangle in which they really have no part. Of course, like many innocent victims of war, it looks as though they are about to be splattered all over the floor. That is wrong; it is as simple as that.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I support the principle of registration, which is what Amendment No. 1B is all about. It is difficult to comprehend Commons Reason No. 1A, which states:
	"Because it is undesirable to permit registered hunting".
	Why is that? Surely the crux of the debate is a ban versus registered hunting—rules or a ban—a compromise which the majority in the Commons refused to accept.
	Surely it is in the interests of pest control and the protection of livestock and wildlife that registered hunting produces the most sustainable solution for foxes, livestock and wildlife; it produces and maintains a balance in the countryside. A ban will result in a decimation of the fox population through shooting. My local hunt, the Brecon and Talybont, killed four foxes in the past month. I know of two young farmers who went out on two consecutive nights and shot four foxes. It is likely that foxes will be decimated without hunting.
	I agree with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, with regard to exempt hunting, especially hunting on foot in the uplands. They are a big improvement on the amendments tabled on Report. The way ahead must be registered hunting.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Graham, I feel deeply offended that people in the other place should be accused of an act of lunacy. It is the wrong word to use if we are seeking any kind of compromise.
	I do not want to go into the merits of the issue. I simply want to point out that a small minority—however vociferous—cannot claim to speak for the whole of the countryside. It is wrong to suggest that; it is also untrue.
	As to pest control, the facts remain the same. Only 6 per cent of foxes are killed by hunts, so what happens to the other 94 per cent?
	I do not wish to speak any more about hunting but about the constitution and the grave consequences that could follow an unelected House challenging an elected House. The way in which we have behaved over the Hunting Bill will bring about the reform of this House sooner rather than later.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I hesitate because I have not taken part in any of the debates, although I have read them. My link to this subject is principally that the matter began with a Private Member's Bill proposed by the honourable Member for Worcester.
	I wish to make two points. In a matter that is regarded by both sides of the debate as one of conscience, compromise is extremely difficult to achieve. It has been a feature of the debates in this House that those who favour the position adopted by the other place on the issue have needed a great deal of courage to say so.
	It has been said repeatedly in the debates—by both sides—that the other side is intransigent. Let me explain my understanding of compromise to those who believe that the Bill as passed by this House is a compromise: it needs two things. First, it needs face-to-face encounters. Compromise does not reside in texts but in conversation. That is the only way to achieve it.
	That brings me to my second point. In the steep learning curve that I have experienced since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, the absence of any structure which, in the context of a free vote in the other place, could avail us of the opportunity for any negotiation to take place has been incredibly noticeable. I do not believe that negotiation and conversation are ever completely impossible, but I have not been able to avoid noticing that there are no structures for conversation, as I understand it, between the two Houses if the Bill is not a government Bill. It is not clear to whom one should talk.
	Whatever may be the outcome of this vote and the vote in the other place and whatever may proceed to the statute book, I hope—as a rather ignorant person when it comes to procedures—that a structure of communication between the two Houses will be invented which does not consist of messages but which, in the context of free vote majorities in the other place, enables conversation to take place. I cannot believe that we would not be a good deal further forward by now if such structures existed and the spirit was there, on both sides of the argument, to achieve some kind of agreement.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, I speak more in sorrow than in anger because this is the last chance for your Lordships to decide whether to insist on everything which is being practised today in the business of hunting with dogs. Do we want it all to go, or are we going to try to identify something that can be saved from this wholly bigoted Bill?
	I am much distressed to find that a Whip has been passed round a number of my noble friends urging them to vote against the amendment that my noble friend Lord Inglewood has brought to our attention yet again. That advice to vote against my noble friend's amendment is mean, narrow and dog in a manger-ish. As he said, we have heard no criticisms during the progress of the Bill of the need to control foxes in the upland areas in the interests of agriculture by exempting the fell packs.
	The Commons have never yet during the past two years had a chance to deal with this kind of amendment. It has been said that the Fell Packs Association does not want its members left as the only ones to continue hunting. I am not sure who they are. I represented lakeland fells in another place for 33 years. I did not practise hunting there, but I fully supported it—it is almost a religion—in order to control foxes in those areas. I cannot recall the Fell Packs Association contacting me over the past 40 years, and certainly not over the past few weeks.
	I believe that it has been conned—I use the word advisedly—into a false unity with every other kind of hunting. It has been conned into taking the view that, if we cannot have hare coursing and we cannot have deer hunting, we cannot have fell hunting either. But it is the only form of hunting that is crucial to the economic livelihood of those upland areas.
	I hope that the people of the Fell Packs Association know what they are doing. I know the people who follow them—as I say, I represented them for 33 years—and their fury will be enormous when they hear that the Fell Packs Association has been a party to trying to persuade those of us who believe that this is a totally bigoted Bill not to try to save the fell pack activities.
	I have experience of what can be done with a Whip. If it states that we should vote against my noble friend's amendment, the chances of the amendment being agreed are very slight. But at least let us leave it on the table in the hope that somebody in another place may pick it up and run with it.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I intervene only because I want to try to explain to the House why I believe that it has engaged itself in a huge misunderstanding of what is happening in the House of Commons over the Hunting Bill.
	Many Members of this House are simply unaware of the fact that at the time of a general election, Members of Parliament—indeed, all candidates at times of general elections—receive from their constituents requests for answers to simple questions on public policy. I have fought six general elections and, in all but the first, I received correspondence from the anti-hunting lobby asking me precisely where I stood in the event of a Division in the House of Commons.
	Most Labour Members of Parliament gave, at the last general election, or in correspondence since the last general election, clear undertakings to their constituents that, in the event that a Bill came before Parliament to ban hunting, they would vote for it. That is not a negotiable position. I say to the right reverend Prelate that, while I agree with his view that there is a need for a process of dialogue between the two Houses and a process for negotiation, in this case there was very little room. Undertakings had been given, and I know for a fact—many of these people are my friends—that they were not going to break those undertakings.
	Therefore, when, two weeks ago, I moved my amendment in Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, moved his on Report—amendments that would have dealt with the problems that existed in the national parks and upland areas—we did so in the knowledge that there would be no movement at that end and that any amendment that was likely to be treated reasonably or considered properly in the other place had to be based on a Bill that would ban hunting. We started off with that proposition. I say to my noble friend Lady Mallalieu that it was inevitable that whatever amendments went before the House of Commons, it had to be borne in mind that hunting was going to be banned.
	To my knowledge, there have been only three amendments during the proceedings on the Bill that have dealt with that as the central proposition which they sought to amend. I refer to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Sewel in Committee, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and my own. They were the only three amendments that could be debated reasonably in the House of Commons and considered in the context of a ban on hunting. What happened to those three amendments? One was defeated, and other two could not be pressed to a vote because we did not believe that the House of Lords was prepared to consider them reasonably due to this preoccupation and obsession with driving through an amendment to return to registration and licensing that was never going to command a majority in the House of Commons.
	We have that amendment before us again. It is Amendment No. 1F. There are noble Lords in the House who, I know, are in favour of hunting but are prepared to compromise. I appeal to them to vote for the amendment, because at least, at this last stage, we may have an opportunity of seeking some consideration of these matters in the House of Commons. It is probably too late, but let us try.
	To my noble friends on this side who have historically voted against hunting, I say that Amendment No. 1F is the only one which stands any chance. I appeal to them to vote for it this evening.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. We have been through this debate before; I should just like to put a couple of matters in context.
	I hope that the House still feels resolved to take the stance it took with a big majority earlier in the Bill's passage. The noble Lords, Lord Hoyle and Lord Graham, said that Members at the other end—the elected end—have felt bullied. I assure noble Lords that some of us in this House have also felt very bullied by the stance taken by those at the elected end, who said, "Whatever you do, we will override you". That is no way to try and get dialogue and compromise.
	We were told that we did not address the Bill, that last time we threw it out. In fact, enough time was not given. We have been through that argument, but it should be put on the record. Alun Michael referred to it the last time, saying that if the House of Lords had sent back an amended Bill, there could have been a debate between the two Houses. There was no chance of that—the Government did not give us scheduled time. It was impossible.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is the noble Baroness not aware that we completed the Committee stage of the Bill this year in just 46 minutes more than was allocated to it last year, when noble Lords talked at such length that we got only as far as Clause 5?

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. He may want to refer to minutes, but in fact, we took three days. At the end of the time allocated to the Bill, there was another whole section to be debated and several of my amendments to be moved.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, let us put this in perspective. The amount of time that this House was promised last year, if it had been taken up, came to less than half the time that another place took in considering the Bill. So let us have no more of this stuff about this House having talked the Bill out or rejected it. What we were given for debate was less than half the time the others took.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend.
	Yesterday, Alun Michael said:
	"it is not this place"—
	by that he meant the Commons—
	"that will insist on using the Parliament Act should that become necessary to resolve this issue, it will be the House of Lords that has provoked the application of that measure".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/11/04. col. 1291.]
	I find that very unsatisfactory, and I wish to place that on the record tonight.
	We have been bullied by the other end. They have not really wanted our compromise; all they wanted was a ban. That should be on the record. I support the noble Baroness's amendment.

Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I sense that these are arguments that we have had many times before and that the House is anxious to get to a vote tonight. I hope that, having heard all that has been said, noble Lords will follow me into the Content Lobby.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it may be helpful to inform the House that, if Amendment No. 1B in the name of my noble friend Lady Mallalieu is agreed to, Amendments Nos. 1C and 1E cannot be called. I apologise for intervening at an inappropriate time, but that is important for the House to know.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1B) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 188; Not-Contents, 79.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 1C and 1E not moved.]
	Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

2 Insert the following new Clause— "Registered hunting (1) Hunting by an individual is registered if he is the subject of individual registration in respect of—
	(a) wild mammals of the species hunted, and
	(b) the area in which the hunting takes place.
	(2) Hunting by an individual is also registered if—
	(a) he participates in hunting by a group,
	(b) at least one of the group is registered under a group registration in respect of—
	(i) wild mammals of the species hunted, and
	(ii) the area in which the hunting takes place, and
	(c) his participation in the hunting is recorded under arrangements made in pursuance of section (Automatic conditions of group registration)(5).
	(3) Hunting by an individual is also registered if—
	(a) he participates in hunting by a number of individuals,
	(b) one of the individuals is the subject of individual registration in respect of—
	(i) wild mammals of the species hunted, and
	(ii) the area in which the hunting takes place, and
	(c) the condition of registration imposed by section (Automatic conditions of individual registration)(5) (maximum number of hunters) is complied with.
	(4) In this Act—
	"group registration" means registration under Part 1A pursuant to an application under section (Application on behalf of group), and
	"individual registration" means registration under Part 1A pursuant to an application under section (Application by individual)."
	2A The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	Because it is undesirable to permit registered hunting.
	3 Page 1, line 18, after "was" insert—
	"(a) registered, or
	(b)"
	3A The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	Because it is undesirable to permit registered hunting.
	4 Page 2, line 3, leave out "a" and insert "an unregistered"
	4A The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	Because it is undesirable to permit registered hunting.
	5 Page 2, line 4, leave out "a" and insert "an unregistered"
	5A The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	Because it is undesirable to permit registered hunting.
	6 Page 2, line 5, leave out "a" and insert "an unregistered"
	6A The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	Because it is undesirable to permit registered hunting.
	7 Page 2, line 6, leave out "a" and insert "an unregistered"
	7A The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason— Because it is undesirable to permit registered hunting.
	8 Page 2, line 8, leave out second "a" and insert "an unregistered"
	8A The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	Because it is undesirable to permit registered hunting.
	9 Insert the following new Clause—
	"PART 1A

REGISTRATION

Introductory

Tests for registration: utility and least suffering

(1) The first test for registration in respect of proposed hunting of wild mammals is that it is likely to make a significant contribution to one or both of, firstly, the management of wildlife and, secondly, the prevention or reduction of serious damage which the wild mammals to be hunted would otherwise cause to—
	(a) livestock,
	(b) game birds or wild birds (within the meaning of section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c. 69)),
	(c) food for livestock,
	(d) crops (including vegetables and fruit),
	(e) growing timber,
	(f) fisheries,
	(g) other property, or
	(h) the biological diversity of an area (within the meaning of the United Nations Environmental Programme Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992).
	(2) The second test for registration in respect of proposed hunting of wild mammals is that a contribution equivalent to that mentioned in subsection (1) could not reasonably be expected to be made (whether by the person proposing to hunt or by another person) in a manner likely to cause significantly less pain, suffering or distress to the wild mammals to be hunted."
	9A The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	Because it is undesirable to permit registered hunting.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 2 to 9, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 2A to 9A. I have spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 1.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 2 to 9, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 2A to 9A.—(Lord Whitty.)

Baroness Mallalieu: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 2 to 9 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 2A to 9A, to leave out "not".

Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 2 to 9 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 2A to 9A, to leave out "not".—(Baroness Mallalieu.)

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

10 Insert the following new Clause—

"The registrar

(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a person ("the registrar") to maintain a register for the purposes of this Act.
	(2) The registrar shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms and conditions of his appointment.
	(3) The registrar shall comply with—
	(a) regulations made by the Secretary of State under this Part, and
	(b) any direction given to the registrar by the Hunting Tribunal (established under section (The Hunting Tribunal)) in the course of or on the determination of proceedings under this Part.
	(4) In exercising his functions the registrar shall have regard to any relevant decision of the Hunting Tribunal.
	(5) The Secretary of State may—
	(a) pay remuneration and allowances to the registrar;
	(b) defray expenses of the registrar;
	(c) provide staff, equipment or other facilities for the registrar.
	(6) Service as the registrar is employment in the civil service of the State."
	10A The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	Because it involves a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reasons, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 10, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 10A. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 1.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 10, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 10A.—(Lord Whitty.)

Baroness Mallalieu: moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 10 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 10A, at end insert "but do propose the following Amendment No. 10C in lieu thereof":
	10C Insert the following new Clause—
	:TITLE3:"The registrar
	(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a person ("the registrar") to maintain a register for the purposes of this Act.
	(2) The registrar shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms and conditions of his appointment.
	(3) The registrar shall comply with—
	(a) regulations made by the Secretary of State under this Part, and
	(b) any direction given to the registrar by the Hunting Tribunal (established under section (The Hunting Tribunal)) in the course of or on the determination of proceedings under this Part.
	(4) In exercising his functions the registrar shall have regard to any relevant decision of the Hunting Tribunal.
	(5) The Secretary of State may—
	(a) pay appropriate remuneration and allowances to the registrar;
	(b) defray appropriate expenses of the registrar;
	(c) provide staff, equipment or other facilities for the registrar.
	(6) Service as the registrar is employment in the civil service of the State.""

Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 10 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 10A, at end insert "but do propose the following Amendment No. 10C in lieu thereof".—(Baroness Mallalieu.)

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

11 Insert the following new Clause—

"The Hunting Tribunal

(1) There shall be a Hunting Tribunal.
	(2) Schedule (The Hunting Tribunal) (which makes provision about the Tribunal) shall have effect.
	(3) The Lord Chancellor may make rules—
	(a) regulating the exercise of a right to appeal or apply to the Tribunal;
	(b) about practice and procedure in relation to proceedings before the Tribunal."
	11A The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 11A. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 1.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 11A.—(Lord Whitty.)

Baroness Mallalieu: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 11 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 11A, leave out "not".

Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 11 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 11A, leave out "not".—(Baroness Mallalieu.)

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

12 Insert the following new Clause—

"Prescribed animal welfare bodies

(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations prescribe one or more bodies as prescribed animal welfare bodies for the purposes of this Part.
	(2) The Secretary of State may prescribe a body only if he thinks that it is wholly or partly concerned with the protection or welfare of animals.
	(3) The Secretary of State may make a payment by way of grant (which may be subject to conditions) to a prescribed animal welfare body."
	12A The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason
	Because it involves a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reasons, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 12A. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 1.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 12A.—(Lord Whitty.)

Baroness Mallalieu: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 12A, at end insert "but do propose Amendment No. 12C in lieu thereof":
	12C Insert the following new Clause—
	:TITLE3:"Prescribed animal welfare bodies
	(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations prescribe one or more bodies as prescribed animal welfare bodies for the purposes of this Part.
	(2) The Secretary of State may prescribe a body only if he thinks that it is wholly or partly concerned with the protection or welfare of animals.
	(3) The Secretary of State may make an appropriate payment by way of grant (which may be subject to conditions) to a prescribed animal welfare body.""

Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 12A, at end insert "but do propose the following Amendment 12C in lieu thereof".—(Baroness Mallalieu.)

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS

13 Insert the following new Clause—
	:TITLE3:"Advisory bodies
	(1) English Nature may provide advice on request to the registrar or the Tribunal about the exercise of a function under this Act in relation to England.
	(2) The Countryside Council for Wales may provide advice on request to the registrar or the Tribunal about the exercise of a function under this Act in relation to Wales."
	13A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	14 Insert the following new clause— "Application for registration Application by individual
	(1) An individual may apply to the registrar to be entered in the register in respect of hunting which he proposes to carry out.
	(2) An applicant must be at least 16 years of age.
	(3) Where an applicant is younger than 18 years of age, his application must be countersigned by a parent or guardian.
	(4) An application must—
	(a) be in the prescribed form,
	(b) contain the prescribed information,
	(c) be accompanied by the prescribed documents (if any), and
	(d) be accompanied by the prescribed fee.
	(5) An application must specify—
	(a) the species of wild mammal which it is proposed to hunt, and
	(b) the area in which it is proposed to hunt.
	(6) An application may specify a condition to be included in the register as a condition of the proposed hunting.
	(7) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State."
	14A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	15 Insert the following new clause— "Application on behalf of group
	(1) One or more individuals may apply to the registrar to be entered in the register in respect of hunting to be carried out jointly by—
	(a) the individual registered or one or more of the individuals registered, and
	(b) one or more individuals under the supervision of the individual registered or of one or more of the individuals registered.
	(2) Each of the applicants must be at least 16 years of age.
	(3) An application must—
	(a) be in the prescribed form,
	(b) contain the prescribed information,
	(c) be accompanied by the prescribed documents (if any), and
	(d) be accompanied by the prescribed fee.
	(4) An application must specify—
	(a) the species of wild mammal which it is proposed to hunt, and
	(b) the area in which it is proposed to hunt.
	(5) An application may specify a condition to be included in the register as a condition of the proposed hunting.
	(6) An application must, in particular, include conditions specifying—
	(a) a maximum number of individuals who may hunt at any time,
	(b) arrangements to ensure compliance with the condition about records imposed by section (Automatic conditions of group registration)(5), and
	(c) arrangements for supervision by the individual or individuals to be registered of non-registered individuals participating in the proposed hunting.
	(7) An application may request that one or more of the registered individuals should be registered in respect of hunting to be carried out without the participation of a non-registered individual (as well as in respect of the joint hunting mentioned in subsection (1)).
	(8) Section (Registered hunting)(1) shall have effect as if the reference to individual registration included a reference to registration by virtue of subsection (7) above (but section (Registered hunting)(3) shall not apply).
	(9) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State."
	15A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	16 Insert the following new clause— "Handling
	(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations about the treatment of an application under section (Application by individual) or (Application on behalf of group).
	(2) The regulations may, in particular—
	(a) enable the registrar to request, before determining an application, the provision of information or additional information by the applicant or applicants or by a prescribed animal welfare body;
	(b) make provision about timing;
	(c) enable or require the registrar to permit the amendment of an application, by the applicant or applicants, before its determination."
	16AThe Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	17 Insert the following new Clause— "Renewal of application
	(1) Where an individual application is refused, the applicant may not make a new individual application during the period of six months beginning with the date on which the first application is finally determined.
	(2) Where an individual registration is cancelled the individual may not make a new individual application during the period of six months beginning with the date of cancellation.
	(3) Where a group application is refused, none of the applicants may be party to a new group application during the period of six months beginning with the date on which the first application is finally determined.
	(4) Where a group registration is cancelled none of the group may be party to a new group application during the period of six months beginning with the date of cancellation.
	(5) Where an individual is removed from a group registration or an application to add him to a group registration is refused he may not be party to a new group application during the period of six months beginning with the date on which the removal is effected or the first application is finally determined.
	(6) But—
	(a) a refusal, cancellation or removal, other than one under section (Determination by registrar)(3)(b), (Determination by Tribunal)(3)(b), (Group registration: addition or replacement)(6) or (De-registration: conviction of an offence)(1), does not prevent a new application which—
	(i) relates only to species to which the old application or registration did not relate, or
	(ii) relates only to an area to which the old application or registration did not relate, and
	(b) the registrar may permit an application despite any of subsections (1) to (5) by reason of a material change of circumstances.
	(7) In this section—
	"group application" means an application under section (Application on behalf of group), and
	"individual application" means an application under section (Application by individual)."
	17A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments No. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	18 Insert the following new clause—
	"Determination Determination by registrar
	(1) This section applies to an application for registration under section (Application by individual) or (Application on behalf of group).
	(2) On receipt of an application the registrar shall—
	(a) invite the prescribed animal welfare bodies to make written representations about the application within a specified period, and
	(b) consider any written representations made by any of those bodies within that period.
	(3) If the registrar is satisfied that the hunting proposed in an application would satisfy the tests specified in section (Tests for registration: utility and least suffering) he shall—
	(a) grant the application, or
	(b) refuse the application if he thinks that the applicant, or any of the applicants, is not a fit and proper person to be registered by reason of a matter specified in subsection (4).
	(4) Those matters are—
	(a) conviction for an offence under this Act,
	(b) conviction for an offence under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 (c. 27),
	(c) conviction for an offence under the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 (c. 14),
	(d) conviction for an offence under section 2 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (c. 51),
	(e) conviction for an offence under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 (c. 3),
	(f) conviction for an offence under the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 (asp 6),
	(g) matters relating to the cancellation of the registration of the applicant or any of the applicants or his or their removal from a group registration, and
	(h) matters relating to the cancellation of the registration of an individual who would be likely to hunt in reliance on the registration or his removal from a group registration.
	(5) If the registrar is satisfied that the hunting proposed in an application would satisfy the tests specified in section (Tests for registration: utility and least suffering) if carried out in accordance with conditions other than those specified in the application, he may, with the consent of the applicant or applicants—
	(a) grant the application, and
	(b) add to or vary the conditions specified in the application.
	(6) Where the registrar determines not to grant an application under subsection (3) or (5) he shall refuse it.
	(7) In considering an application the registrar shall assume, unless he has reason not to, that the hunting proposed would be carried out in accordance with—
	(a) the conditions specified in section (Automatic conditions of individual registration) or (Automatic conditions of group registration), and
	(b) any condition specified in the application."
	18A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	19 Insert the following new clause— "Appeal to Tribunal
	(1) Where the registrar refuses an application under section (Application by individual) or (Application on behalf of group) the applicant or applicants may appeal to the Tribunal.
	(2) Where the registrar grants an application under section (Application by individual) or (Application on behalf of group) a prescribed animal welfare body may appeal to the Tribunal." 19A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	20 Insert the following new clause— "Determination by Tribunal
	(1) This section applies where an appeal is brought to the Tribunal under section (Appeal to Tribunal) against the registrar's decision on an application.
	(2) The Tribunal shall give the applicant or applicants and the prescribed animal welfare bodies an opportunity to make representations.
	(3) If satisfied that the hunting proposed in the application would satisfy the tests specified in section (Tests for registration: utility and least suffering) the Tribunal shall—
	(a) grant the application, or
	(b) refuse the application if the Tribunal thinks that the applicant, or any of the applicants, is not a fit and proper person to be registered by reason of a matter specified in section (Determination by registrar)(4).
	(4) If satisfied that the hunting proposed in the application would satisfy the tests specified in section (Tests for registration: utility and least suffering) if carried out in accordance with conditions other than those specified in the application, the Tribunal may, with the consent of the applicant or applicants—
	(a) grant the application, and
	(b) add to or vary the conditions specified in the application.
	(5) Where the Tribunal determines not to grant the application under subsection (3) or (4) it shall refuse the application.
	(6) In considering an appeal under section (Appeal to Tribunal) the Tribunal shall assume, unless it has reason not to, that the hunting proposed in an application would be carried out in accordance with—
	(a) the conditions specified in section (Automatic conditions of individual registration) or (Automatic conditions of group registration), and
	(b) any condition specified in the application.
	(7) On determining an appeal the Tribunal may—
	(a) give a direction to the registrar;
	(b) make any order that it thinks appropriate."
	20A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	21 Insert the following new clause— "Appeal from Tribunal
	(1) A person who is party to proceedings before the Tribunal under section (Appeal to Tribunal) may appeal on a point of law to the High Court.
	(2) An appeal under subsection (1) may be brought only with the permission of—
	(a) the Tribunal, or
	(b) if the Tribunal refuses permission, the High Court."
	21A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	22 Insert the following new clause—"The register Form of the register
	The Secretary of State may make regulations about—
	(a) the form of the register;
	(b) the manner in which it is maintained."
	22A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	23 Insert the following new clause— "Content of the register
	In the case of each registration the register shall record—
	(a) the species of wild mammal in respect of the hunting of which the registration has effect,
	(b) the area in respect of hunting in which the registration has effect,
	(c) any other information provided in or with the application for registration,
	(d) any conditions of the registration (apart from those specified in section (Automatic conditions of individual registration) or (Automatic conditions of group registration), and
	(e) such other matters as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State."
	23AThe Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	24 Insert the following new clause— "Inspection of the register
	(1) The registrar—
	(a) shall make the register available for inspection by the public at all reasonable times, and
	(b) shall provide a copy of an entry in the register to any person who requests it.
	(2) But the Secretary of State may by regulations—
	(a) provide that information of a specified kind shall not be made available for inspection under subsection (1)(a) and shall be omitted from copies provided under subsection (1)(b);
	(b) require the payment of a specified fee as a precondition of the provision of a copy under subsection (1)(b).
	(3) Regulations under subsection (2)(a) may make provision by reference to a request of a registered individual."
	24A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	25 Insert the following new Clause— "Standard duration of registration
	Registration under this Part shall have effect for—
	(a) the period of three years starting with the date on which it is effected, or
	(b) such shorter period starting with that date as may be specified in the application for registration."
	25AThe Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	26 Insert the following new clause— "Renewal of registration
	(1) Registration under this Part may be renewed so as to continue to have effect for—
	(a) the period of three years starting with the date on which renewal is effected, or
	(b) such shorter period starting with that date as may be specified in the application for renewal.
	(2) A provision of this Act which has effect in relation to an application for registration shall have effect (with any necessary modifications) in relation to an application for the renewal of a registration.
	(3) If an application for renewal of registration is made more than six months before the registration would otherwise expire, the registration shall continue to have effect until the application is finally determined.
	(4) Subsection (3) has effect—
	(a) despite section (Standard duration of registration), but
	(b) subject to any power under this Part to cancel or vary a registration.
	(5) Regulations under this Part may make special provision in relation to applications for renewal."
	26A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments No. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	27 Insert the following new clause— "Handling of applications
	(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations about the treatment of an application under this Part (other than under section (Application by individual) or (Application on behalf of group).
	(2) The regulations may, in particular—
	(a) enable the registrar to request, before determining an application, the provision of information or additional information by the applicant or applicants or by a prescribed animal welfare body;
	(b) make provision about timing."
	27A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments No. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	28 Insert the following new clause—"Conditions of registration Automatic conditions of individual registration
	(1) Individual registration is subject to the conditions specified in this section.
	(2) The first condition is that in the course of hunting carried out in reliance on the registration reasonable steps are taken to ensure—
	(a) that any wild mammal injured or captured is killed quickly and humanely,
	(b) that any wild mammal shot in accordance with paragraph (a) is shot by a competent person, and
	(c) that hunting is carried out on land only with the prior permission of the occupier of the land or, in the case of unoccupied land, a person to whom it belongs.
	(3) The second condition is that any inspector appointed by a prescribed animal welfare body is permitted on request to accompany the registered individual for the purpose of inspecting hunting carried on in reliance on the registration.
	(4) The third condition is that there is insurance in place in respect of loss or damage caused to persons other than the registered individual in the course of hunting carried on in reliance on the registration.
	(5) The fourth condition is that where the registered individual hunts in reliance on the registration not more than two other individuals (whether registered or not) participate in the hunting."
	28A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments No. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	29 Insert the following new clause— "Automatic conditions of group registration
	(1) Group registration is subject to the conditions specified in this section.
	(2) The first condition is that in the course of hunting carried out in reliance on the registration reasonable steps are taken to ensure—
	(a) that any wild mammal injured or captured is killed quickly and humanely,
	(b) that any wild mammal shot in accordance with paragraph (a) is shot by a competent person, and
	(c) that hunting is carried out on land only with the prior permission of the occupier of the land or, in the case of unoccupied land, a person to whom it belongs.
	(3) The second condition is that any inspector appointed by a prescribed animal welfare body is permitted on request to accompany individuals hunting in reliance on the registration for the purpose of inspecting their hunting.
	(4) The third condition is that there is insurance in place in respect of loss or damage caused to persons other than those registered in the course of hunting in reliance on the registration.
	(5) The fourth condition is that—
	(a) on each occasion on which hunting is carried out in reliance on the registration a record is made of the identity of each individual (whether registered or not) who participates in the hunt, and
	(b) a record made under paragraph (a) is retained throughout the duration of the registration.
	(6) The fifth condition is that reasonable steps are taken to exclude from participation in hunting carried out in reliance on the registration any individual whom any of the registered individuals knows or suspects—
	(a) to have had his registration under this Part cancelled, or to have been removed from a group registration, within the previous period of three years,
	(b) to be subject to a disqualification order under section (Disqualification for registration), or
	(c) to have been convicted of an offence under this Act, the Protection of Animals Act 1911 (c. 27), the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 (c. 14), the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 (c. 3), the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 (asp 6), or under section 2 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (c. 51)."
	29A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments No. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	30 Insert the following new clause— "Amendment of automatic conditions
	The Secretary of State may by order amend section (Automatic conditions of individual registration) or (Automatic conditions of group registration) so as to—
	(d) add a condition;
	(e) remove a condition;
	(f) vary a condition."
	30A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments No. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	31 Insert the following new clause— "Variation of non-automatic condition
	(1) An individual who is the subject of an individual registration may apply to the registrar for variation of the conditions of the registration (other than a condition imposed by section (Automatic conditions of individual registration)).
	(2) A group of individuals who are the subject of a group registration may apply to the registrar for variation of the conditions of the registration (other than a condition imposed by section (Automatic conditions of group registration)).
	(3) An application must—
	(a) be in the prescribed form,
	(b) contain the prescribed information,
	(c) be accompanied by the prescribed documents (if any), and
	(d) be accompanied by the prescribed fee.
	(4) Section (Determination by registrar) shall apply to an application under this section as if—
	(a) a reference to the hunting proposed to be carried out were a reference to hunting carried out in reliance on the registration under the conditions as proposed to be varied, and
	(b) the assumption in subsection (7) were an assumption about compliance with the conditions of registration as proposed to be varied.
	(5) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State."
	31A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	32 Insert the following new clause— "Appeal to Tribunal (No. 2)
	(1) Where the registrar grants or refuses an application under section (Variation of non-automatic condition) a party to the application may appeal to the Tribunal.
	(2) The Tribunal shall give the appellant or appellants and the prescribed animal welfare bodies an opportunity to make representations.
	(3) On determining the appeal the Tribunal may—
	(a) give a direction to the registrar;
	(b) make any order that it thinks appropriate.
	(4) A person who is party to proceedings under this section may appeal on a point of law to the High Court.
	(5) An appeal under subsection (4) may be brought only with the permission of—
	(a) the Tribunal, or
	(b) if the Tribunal refuses permission, the High Court."
	32A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments No. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	33 Insert the following new clause—"Variation and cancellation of registration Group registration: addition or replacement
	(1) An individual may apply to the registrar to be added to a group registration—
	(a) as an additional registered individual, or
	(b) in substitution for an individual registered.
	(2) The applicant must be at least 16 years of age.
	(3) An application under this section must—
	(a) be in the prescribed form,
	(b) contain the prescribed information,
	(c) be accompanied by the prescribed documents (if any), and
	(d) be accompanied by the prescribed fee.
	(4) An application under this section must be accompanied by the written consent of more than half of the individuals registered under the group registration.
	(5) In the case of an application to replace an individual the consents under subsection (4) must include his consent.
	(6) The registrar shall grant an application under this section unless he thinks that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to be registered by reason of—
	(a) a conviction for an offence under this Act,
	(b) a conviction for an offence under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 (c. 27),
	(c) conviction for an offence under the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 (c. 14),
	(d) conviction for an offence under section 2 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (c. 51),
	(e) conviction for an offence under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 (c. 3),
	(f) conviction for an offence under the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 (asp 6), or
	(g) matters relating to the cancellation of the applicant's registration or his removal from a group registration.
	(7) An addition to or substitution in a group registration shall not affect the duration of the registration.
	(8) Where an application under this section to add an individual to a group registration is refused no new application may be made to add the individual to a group registration during the period of six months beginning with the date of the refusal.
	(9) But the registrar may permit an application despite subsection (8) by reason of a material change of circumstances.
	(10) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State."
	33AThe Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	34 Insert the following new clause— "De-registration: conviction of offence
	(1) The registrar may cancel an individual registration, or remove an individual from a group registration, if the individual is convicted of an offence under—
	(a) this Act,
	(b) the Protection of Animals Act 1911 (c. 27),
	(c) the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 (c. 14),
	(d) section 2 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (c. 51),
	(e) the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 (c. 3),
	(f) the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 (asp 6).
	(2) The registrar shall notify an individual in respect of whom the registrar has taken action under subsection (1)."
	34A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	35 Insert the following new clause— "De-registration: general
	(1) Any of the prescribed animal welfare bodies may apply to the registrar for a registration to be cancelled, or for an individual to be removed from a group registration, on the grounds that—
	(a) a condition of the registration has been breached, or
	(b) the tests specified in section (Tests for registration: utility and least suffering) are no longer satisfied in respect of the hunting to which the registration relates.
	(2) The occupier of land, or in the case of unoccupied land a person to whom it belongs, may apply to the registrar for a registration to be cancelled, or for an individual to be removed from a group registration, on the grounds that trespass to the land has been committed in the course of hunting carried out in reliance on the registration.
	(3) An application under this section must—
	(a) be in the prescribed form,
	(b) contain the prescribed information,
	(c) be accompanied by the prescribed documents (if any), and
	(d) be accompanied by the prescribed fee.
	(4) On an application under this section the following are entitled to make written representations to the registrar—
	(a) the applicant,
	(b) the relevant registered individual or individuals, and
	(c) in the case of an application under subsection (2), any person to whom the land belongs.
	(5) For the purposes of an application under this section the registrar may require the production of a record made pursuant to section (Automatic conditions of group registration)(5).
	(6) On an application under this section the registrar may—
	(a) cancel a registration or remove an individual from a group registration (whether on the grounds alleged in the application, on grounds that could have been alleged or on the grounds that a record required under subsection (5) was not produced);
	(b) with the consent of the individual or individuals registered, vary the conditions of registration.
	(7) An application under subsection (2) is without prejudice to a person's right to seek another remedy in respect of trespass.
	(8) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State."
	35A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	36 Insert the following new clause— "Appeal to Tribunal (No. 3)
	(1) Where the registrar refuses an application under section (Group registration: addition or replacement) the applicant may appeal to the Tribunal.
	(2) Where the registrar takes action in respect of an individual under section (De-registration: conviction of offence) the individual may appeal to the Tribunal.
	(3) Where the registrar grants or refuses an application under section (De-registration: general) a party to the application may appeal to the Tribunal.
	(4) The Tribunal shall give the following an opportunity to make representations—
	(a) the appellant or appellants,
	(b) the relevant registered individual or individuals (if not the appellant or appellants),
	(c) the prescribed animal welfare bodies, and
	(d) in the case of an appeal in respect of an application under section (De-registration: general)(2), a person to whom the relevant land belongs.
	(5) For the purposes of an appeal under this section the Tribunal may require the production of a record made pursuant to section (Automatic conditions of group registration)(5).
	(6) On determining the appeal the Tribunal may—
	(a) give a direction to the registrar;
	(b) make any order that it thinks appropriate.
	(7) A person who is party to proceedings under this section may appeal on a point of law to the High Court.
	(8) An appeal under subsection (7) may be brought only with the permission of—
	(a) the Tribunal, or
	(b) if the Tribunal refuses permission, the High Court."
	36A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	37 Insert the following new clause— "De-registration: saving
	(1) Cancellation of a registration under this Part shall be without prejudice to the lawfulness of anything done in reliance on it while it had effect.
	(2) The removal of an individual from a group registration shall be without prejudice to the lawfulness of anything done in reliance on his inclusion while he was included."
	37A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	38 Insert the following new clause—"Offences False information
	A person commits an offence if—
	(a) he makes a false statement or gives false information in an application under this Part, and
	(b) he does not believe the statement or information to be true."
	38AThe Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	39 Insert the following new clause— "Group registration: failure to keep records
	(1) In the case of a group registration each registered individual commits an offence if he fails—
	(a) to make a record of each occasion on which he hunts in purported reliance on the registration,
	(b) when hunting in purported reliance on the registration, to make a record of the identity of each individual participating in the hunting, or
	(c) to retain throughout the duration of the registration each record made by him under paragraph (a) or (b).
	(2) It is a defence for an individual charged with an offence under this section to show that he reasonably believed that a record was made or retained by another registered individual."
	39A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	40 Page 2, line 20, at end insert—
	"( ) Where a magistrates' court convicts a person of an offence under this Act the clerk of the court (within the meaning of section 141 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43)) shall notify the registrar."
	40A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	41 Insert the following new clause— "Disqualification for registration
	(1) A court which convicts a person of an offence under Part 1 of this Act may make an order (a "disqualification order") that he may not—
	(a) be registered under Part 1A of this Act, or
	(b) hunt in reliance on section (Registered hunting)(2) or (3).
	(2) A disqualification order shall specify the duration of the disqualification (which may be for the person's life).
	(3) The registrar—
	(a) shall not register a person who is subject to a disqualification order,
	(b) shall cancel a person's registration if he is registered when a disqualification order takes effect, and
	(c) shall cancel a person's registration if he was subject to a disqualification order when the registration took effect.
	(4) The subject of a disqualification order may apply for an order terminating it.
	(5) An application under subsection (4) for the termination of a disqualification order may be made only if—
	(a) a year has elapsed since the date of the order, and
	(b) a year has elapsed since the date of the determination of any previous application under subsection (4) in respect of the order.
	(6) An application under subsection (4) must be made to—
	(a) the magistrates' court which made the disqualification order, or
	(b) a magistrates' court for the same petty sessions area.
	(7) On hearing an application under subsection (4) a magistrates' court may order the applicant to pay costs.
	(8) Where a magistrates' court makes or terminates a disqualification order the clerk of the court (within the meaning of section 141 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43)) shall notify the registrar.
	(9) In this section a reference to a person's registration includes a reference to his inclusion in a group registration."
	41A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	42 Page 4, line 20, at end insert "; or
	"(c) a person engages or participates in a hare coursing event."
	42AThe Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	43 Page 4, line 28, at end insert—
	"( ) For the purposes of this Act an application to the registrar shall be treated as finally determined when—
	(a) the registrar has determined the application (or it has been withdrawn or abandoned), and
	(b) an appeal to the Tribunal has been determined by the Tribunal (or withdrawn or abandoned) or can no longer be brought (ignoring the possibility of an appeal out of time with permission).
	( ) In this Act a reference to a party to proceedings before the registrar or the Tribunal includes a reference to a person who makes representations to the registrar or Tribunal about the proceedings."
	43A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	44 Page 5, line 2, leave out from "order" to end of line 5 and insert ", regulations or rules made by the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor under this Act shall be made by statutory instrument.
	( ) An order of the Secretary of State under this Act may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, other than an order under section (Commencement) which shall not be subject to parliamentary proceedings.
	( ) Regulations and rules under this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
	( ) An order, regulations or rules made by the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor under this Act—"
	44A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hope that I can speed things up a bit now. I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 13 to 44 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 13A to 44A. I have spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 1.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 13 to 44 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 13A to 44A.—(Lord Whitty.)

Baroness Mallalieu: rose to move Amendment No. 13B, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 13 to 44 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 13A to 44A, leave out "not".

Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I have spoken to all these amendments with Amendment No. 1.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 13 to 44 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 13A to 44A, leave out "not".—(Baroness Mallalieu.)

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

45 Insert the following new Clause— "Money
	(1) Any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown in connection with this Act shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
	(2) Money received by the registrar by way of fees shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund."
	45AThe Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	Because it involves a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reasons, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 45 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 45A. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 1.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 45 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 45A.—(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

46 Leave out Clause 15 and insert the following new Clause— "Commencement
	(1) Parts 1, 1A and 2 and section 13 shall come into force on a day appointed by order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument; and different days may be appointed for different purposes.
	(2) The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (1) before 1st December 2007.
	(3) The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (1) before he has received a report from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons commissioned by him on the relative pain, suffering or distress caused to wild mammals by hunting with dogs compared with other methods of controlling those wild mammals.
	(4) The species of wild mammal included in the report under subsection (3) must include deer, fox, hare and mink."
	46A The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 46 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 46A.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 46 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 46A.—(Lord Whitty.)
	46B

Lord Mancroft: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 46 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 46A, at end insert, "but do propose Amendment 46C in lieu thereof—
	46C Leave out Clause 15 and insert the following new Clause—
	"Commencement
	(1) This Act shall come into force on a day appointed by order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument; and different days may be appointed for different purposes.
	(2) The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (1) before 1st December 2007.
	(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 14, an order under this section shall not be subject to parliamentary proceedings.""

Lord Mancroft: My Lords, this amendment relates to the enactment of the Bill. As your Lordships will be aware, the Government clearly do not regard this as an urgent Bill, even though for some reason they think that the Parliament Act should apply, because it is their intention that the Bill should not be enacted for some 18 months. My understanding of the reason for that is not entirely clear. However, early on in proceedings, some weeks ago, the Minister, Mr Michael, implied on the radio that it was something to do with the welfare of hounds. I do not find that a credible excuse.
	I suspect that the real reason, as I think your Lordships will agree, relates more to the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular to the Select Committee's report. I think that most of your Lordships will agree—I believe that it is widely accepted—that the Bill both at Second Reading in another place and at Second Reading in your Lordships' House should not really have had the certificate on human rights. It is quite clear that the present Bill is in breach of human rights and that the only thing that will put it back within it is the Government's 18-month delay period. That is the first and main reason.
	The second reason, which is also now perfectly clear, is that the Government wish to delay the enactment of the Bill to avoid any civil disobedience, disruption or difficulties they might face during a general election campaign. The delay that the Government have proposed is therefore for their own convenience and for nothing else.
	It has been suggested in the newspapers this morning that those of us who are opposed to the Bill intend to move what I think is described in some of the broadsheets as a "kamikaze" amendment. I do not think that that would be a very sensible idea. The proposal that we are making to your Lordships this evening is to delay the enactment of the legislation for three years, until December 2007, which is almost the same as an amendment that we proposed at an earlier stage of the Bill, although we have excluded that the Secretary of State should need to commission research by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. That was probably not an appropriate thing to do at this stage.
	Real welfare problems are involved in the enactment of the Bill, and not just the welfare of the quarry species. As the noble Baroness has already told the House, there are welfare issues around hounds. As she also said, there are welfare issues around the horses. That was specifically drawn to our attention this evening by the letter to the Minister from the British Horse Society, making it clear that his views on what will happen to horses in hunting are quite inaccurate. It has raised with him some very serious welfare issues of which I have no doubt your Lordships will wish to take note.
	There are other welfare issues, such as the welfare of all the people involved in hunting. As we all know, it is very difficult for people to change their standard of living and their lifestyle very quickly in any way at all. It is therefore appropriate for them to be given a reasonable length of time. Most noble Lords would agree that three years fitted that bill.
	We debated the final point—the deer management problem—at length on Report. It is specific to the West Country. It is widely accepted—the Minister accepted it and the noble Lord, Lord Burns, drew attention to it—that Exmoor is a unique and unusual place, to put it mildly. The herd of red deer on Exmoor is completely unique; there is no other herd like it in the United Kingdom. There are other herds of red deer, but they are nothing like the way they are in Exmoor. It has been said by everyone—the Porchester report, Exmoor National Park, the Minister, the Burns report, the Phelps report—that it would be deeply irresponsible to change the current system of management of the deer, which is centred around the stag hounds, without putting in place another system.
	It is worth remembering that 30 per cent of the deer that the stag hounds take each year are injured or ill deer—they are nothing to do with hunting. Most are either poached and wounded, or involved in car accidents. In the absence of the stag hounds, no one has any ability at all to deal with those injured deer, which is a significant welfare problem. There are a very large number of small landowners down there; they all need to work together. The Government, particularly Mr Elliot Morley, have drawn attention to the fact that the local deer management group is the most successful such group in the United Kingdom, and it will take a very considerable time—certainly three years—to put anything else in place.
	That is why—there are other similar reasons—we need the delayed enactment. The Bill is thoroughly objectionable, as the Prime Minister knows. It is not urgent; the Government have told us so. The 18-month period is pure political expediency. My amendment is logical and reasonable, and I invite the House to accept it.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 46 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 46A, at end insert, "but do propose Amendment No. 46C in lieu thereof".—(Lord Mancroft.)

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not wish to respond to all the points in the noble Lord's speech, because we have been over that ground rather too frequently in recent weeks. We are still trying to convince the House of Commons to modify its stance or operate on the basis of some degree of understanding of the position taken by this House. It does not seem sensible that we should try to delay by three years the implementation of whatever Bill eventually emerges, whether it is a registration Bill or a ban Bill, to use the shorthand.
	We know the position that the House of Commons has already taken on the matter. It has suggested an amendment to us that would delay implementation until July 2006. I propose to move that amendment after the completion of the amendments to the Bill. It would do one or two different things. It would allow some time for adjustment, so it would allow some of the welfare problems to be addressed. It would also allow the people of the United Kingdom to decide whether they approved of the Bill, as the Conservative Party has made it clear that it would repeal the Bill after a general election. The amendment would take the implementation of the Bill beyond a general election.
	The noble Lord referred to that as cynical political manoeuvring, but it is nothing of the sort. It is responding, in part at least, to the accusations made by the noble Lord and his colleagues about the Government and the majority of the House of Commons that we are acting undemocratically. It will allow no action on the Bill until a general election has either endorsed or not endorsed the Government and House of Commons that proposed it.
	I do not believe that 2007 is a sensible date, and I did not believe so last week. There has been some improvement in the technicalities of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, but I do not believe that the House should accept that date. I shall propose an alternative date in a moment.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that if the amendment is passed he will still propose an amendment suggesting an alternative date? How can two alternative dates be proposed in one Bill?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Viscount is being disingenuously logical. We know very well where we are. There are in fact two Bills in play here. The amendment was part of the package—it would be slightly amended by the noble Lord's current amendment—for a registration Bill. We also know that the House of Commons has insisted, and is likely to insist again, on a Bill which is primarily a ban with a number of exemptions. The timetable proposed by the House of Commons ought to apply to either Bill. Therefore, if the package of amendments on which we have just voted prevails, it is probable that the 2007 date that is attached to it prevails. However, the alternative position, which the Commons amendment addresses, would provide a delay in the banning Bill. Therefore, I propose to move it, when we have completed all the amendments presented to us by your Lordships tonight.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I support what the Minister has said logically and clearly. It provides me with the opportunity to express my admiration for the manner in which the Minister has conducted himself not only today but at all stages of the Bill.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, he has had to show tremendous patience and understanding. At all times, when his integrity with regard to the Bill has been questioned, he has stood firm. He made his position clear at the outset and on other occasions. He is entitled to the thanks of the whole House.

Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I listened to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, with great interest, and I listened, too, to the words of the Minister. He spoke about time for adjustment, which is precisely what I am proposing.
	The concept that a minority spread as thinly as butter across the country, such as the hunting community, can impact significantly on a general election is a twisted view of the democratic process. I suspect that that is part of the reason why we face the problems that we face today.
	There is no point in rehearsing the arguments; your Lordships know them well enough. I commend the amendment to the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 46B) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 176; Not-Contents, 85.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS

47 Schedule 1, page 7, line 15, leave out from "(c. 69))" to end of line 16
	47A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason— Because it is undesirable to expand the exemptions from the prohibition on hunting.
	48 Page 7, line 16, at end insert ", or livestock (within the meaning of section 8(1) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 (c. 34))."
	48A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is undesirable to expand the exemptions from the prohibition on hunting.
	49 Page 8, line 10, at end insert—
	"Stoats and weasels
	The hunting of stoats and weasels is exempt if it takes place on land—
	(a) which belongs to the hunter, or
	(b) which he has been given permission to use for the purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs."
	49A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason— Because it is undesirable to expand the exemptions from the prohibition on hunting. 50 Page 9, line 6, after "be" insert "orphaned or" 50A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason— Because it is undesirable to expand the exemptions from the prohibition on hunting. 51 Page 9, line 12, at end insert "except to despatch orphaned cubs" 51A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason— Because it is undesirable to expand the exemptions from the prohibition on hunting.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 47 to 51 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 47A to 51A.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 47 to 51 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 47A to 51A.—(Lord Whitty.)

Baroness Mallalieu: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 47 to 51 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 47A to 51A, leave out "not".

Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 47 to 51 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 47A to 51A, leave out "not".—(Baroness Mallalieu.)

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

52 Insert the following new Schedule—
	Section (The Hunting Tribunal)
	"The Hunting Tribunal
	President and deputy
	1 (1) The Lord Chancellor shall appoint a President of the Tribunal.
	(2) A person may be appointed as President only if—
	(a) he has a ten year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41),
	(b) he is an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least ten years' standing, or
	(c) he is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland, or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, of at least ten years' standing.
	2 (1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint a member of the panel of chairmen of the Tribunal as deputy President of the Tribunal.
	(2) The deputy President—
	(a) may act for the President if he is unable to act or unavailable or during a vacancy in the office of President, and
	(b) shall perform such other functions as the President may assign or delegate to him.
	3 The Lord Chancellor may authorise a member of the panel of chairmen of the Tribunal—
	(a) to act for the President if he and the deputy President (if there is one) are unable to act or unavailable;
	(b) to act for the President during a vacancy in that office if there is no deputy President;
	(c) to act for the deputy President if he is unable to act or unavailable.

Chairmen

4 (1) The Lord Chancellor shall appoint persons to a panel of chairmen of the Tribunal.
	(2) A person may be appointed under this paragraph only if—
	(a) he has a seven year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41),
	(b) he is an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least seven years' standing, or
	(c) he is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland, or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, of at least seven years' standing.
	Members
	5 (1) The Lord Chancellor shall appoint persons to a panel of members of the Tribunal.
	(2) A person may be appointed under this paragraph only if he—
	(a) is on the general list of veterinary surgeons (within the meaning of section 2 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (c. 36)), or
	(b) has experience relating to the welfare of animals or the management of land which in the Lord Chancellor's opinion makes it appropriate to appoint him as a member of the Tribunal.
	Tenure
	6 (1) A person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5 shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment (subject to this paragraph).
	(2) A person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5 may resign by notice in writing to the Lord Chancellor.
	(3) The Lord Chancellor may dismiss a person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5—
	(a) on the grounds that he is unable or unwilling to perform his functions, or
	(b) for misbehaviour.
	Proceedings
	7 The Tribunal shall sit in such places and at such times as the Lord Chancellor shall determine (and may hold more than one sitting at a time).
	8 (1) The President shall make arrangements for determining which of the persons appointed under paragraphs 1 to 5 shall constitute the Tribunal at each sitting.
	(2) The arrangements shall, in particular—
	(a) ensure that at each sitting the Tribunal consists of or includes the President or a member of the panel of chairmen, and
	(b) make provision for replacement in a case where the Tribunal consists of a single member who becomes unable to act.
	9 Decisions of the Tribunal may be taken by majority vote.
	10 The President may give directions about the practice and procedure of the Tribunal.
	11 Rules under section (The Hunting Tribunal) may, in particular, make provision—
	(a) about representation of parties;
	(b) about withdrawal of proceedings;
	(c) about the admission of members of the public to proceedings;
	(d) about recording and promulgating decisions;
	(e) by reference to a direction given or to be given by the President.
	Evidence
	12 The Tribunal—
	(a) may call an expert witness to give evidence on a matter of fact arising in proceedings before it, and
	(b) may have regard to advice provided to it under section (Advisory bodies).
	Costs
	13 If the Tribunal thinks that a party to proceedings before it has acted unreasonably it may order the party to pay all or part of the costs incurred by another party to the proceedings.
	Council on Tribunals
	14 In Part I of Schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (c. 53) (tribunals under general supervision of Council) the following shall be inserted before paragraph 22—
	
		
			  
			 "Hunting 21B. The Hunting Tribunal established by section (The Hunting Tribunal) of the Hunting Act 2004." 
		
	
	Money
	15 The Lord Chancellor—
	(a) may pay sums by way of remuneration, allowances and expenses to a person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5,
	(b) may pay sums by way of or in respect of a pension to a person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5,
	(c) may make staff and other facilities available to the Tribunal, and
	(d) may pay sums by way of allowances and expenses to an expert witness called under paragraph 12."
	52A The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	Because it involves a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reasons, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on Amendment No. 52, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 52A. I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Whitty.)

Baroness Mallalieu: rose to move Amendment No. 52B, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 52 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 52A, at end insert "but do propose Amendment No. 52C in lieu thereof.
	After Schedule 1
	52C Insert the following new Schedule—
	Section (The Hunting Tribunal) "The Hunting Tribunal
	President and deputy
	1 (1) The Lord Chancellor shall appoint a President of the Tribunal.
	(2) A person may be appointed as President only if—
	(a) he has a ten year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41),
	(b) he is an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least ten years' standing, or
	(c) he is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland, or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, of at least ten years' standing.
	2 (1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint a member of the panel of chairmen of the Tribunal as deputy President of the Tribunal.
	(2) The deputy President—
	(a) may act for the President if he is unable to act or unavailable or during a vacancy in the office of President, and
	(b) shall perform such other functions as the President may assign or delegate to him.
	3 The Lord Chancellor may authorise a member of the panel of chairmen of the Tribunal—
	(a) to act for the President if he and the deputy President (if there is one) are unable to act or unavailable;
	(b) to act for the President during a vacancy in that office if there is no deputy President;
	(c) to act for the deputy President if he is unable to act or unavailable.
	Chairmen
	4 (1) The Lord Chancellor shall appoint persons to a panel of chairmen of the Tribunal.
	(2) A person may be appointed under this paragraph only if—
	(a) he has a seven year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41),
	(b) he is an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least seven years' standing, or
	(c) he is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland, or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, of at least seven years' standing.
	Members
	5 (1) The Lord Chancellor shall appoint persons to a panel of members of the Tribunal.
	(2) A person may be appointed under this paragraph only if he—
	(a) is on the general list of veterinary surgeons (within the meaning of section 2 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (c. 36)), or
	(b) has experience relating to the welfare of animals or the management of land which in the Lord Chancellor's opinion makes it appropriate to appoint him as a member of the Tribunal.
	Tenure
	6 (1) A person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5 shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment (subject to this paragraph).
	(2) A person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5 may resign by notice in writing to the Lord Chancellor.
	(3) The Lord Chancellor may dismiss a person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5—
	(a) on the grounds that he is unable or unwilling to perform his functions, or
	(b) for misbehaviour.
	Proceedings
	7 The Tribunal shall sit in such places and at such times as the Lord Chancellor shall determine (and may hold more than one sitting at a time).
	8 (1) The President shall make arrangements for determining which of the persons appointed under paragraphs 1 to 5 shall constitute the Tribunal at each sitting.
	(2) The arrangements shall, in particular—
	(a) ensure that at each sitting the Tribunal consists of or includes the President or a member of the panel of chairmen, and
	(b) make provision for replacement in a case where the Tribunal consists of a single member who becomes unable to act.
	9 Decisions of the Tribunal may be taken by majority vote.
	10 The President may give directions about the practice and procedure of the Tribunal.
	11 Rules under section (The Hunting Tribunal) may, in particular, make provision—
	(a) about representation of parties;
	(b) about withdrawal of proceedings;
	(c) about the admission of members of the public to proceedings;
	(d) about recording and promulgating decisions;
	(e) by reference to a direction given or to be given by the President.
	Evidence
	12 The Tribunal—
	(a) may call an expert witness to give evidence on a matter of fact arising in proceedings before it, and
	(b) may have regard to advice provided to it under section (Advisory bodies).
	Costs
	13 If the Tribunal thinks that a party to proceedings before it has acted unreasonably it may order the party to pay all or part of the costs incurred by another party to the proceedings.
	Council on Tribunals
	14 In Part I of Schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (c. 53) (tribunals under general supervision of Council) the following shall be inserted before paragraph 22—
	
		
			  
			 "Hunting 21B. The Hunting Tribunal established by section (The Hunting Tribunal) of the Hunting Act 2004." 
		
	
	Money
	15 The Lord Chancellor—
	(a) may pay appropriate sums by way of remuneration, allowances and expenses to a person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5,
	(b) may pay appropriate sums by way of or in respect of a pension to a person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5,
	(c) may make staff and other facilities available to the Tribunal, and
	(d) may pay appropriate sums by way of allowances and expenses to an expert witness called under paragraph 12.""

Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 52 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 52A, at end insert "but do propose Amendment No. 52C in lieu thereof".—(Baroness Mallalieu.)

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS

53 Schedule 2, page 10, line 25, after "is" insert "registered or"
	53A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.
	54 In the Title, line 1, after "prohibit" insert "unregistered"
	54A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 53 and 54, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 53A and 54A. I spoke to the amendments with Amendment No. 1.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 53 and 54, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 53A and 54A.—(Lord Whitty.)

Baroness Mallalieu: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 53 and 54, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 53A and 54A, leave out "not".

Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I spoke to the amendments with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 53A and 54A, leave out "not"—(Baroness Mallalieu.)

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Motion, as amended, agreed to.
	Bill returned to the Commons with amendments and reasons.

Lord Whitty: rose to move that the House do agree with the Commons suggested amendment:
	Clause 15, Leave out Clause 15 and insert the following new Clause— ,
	"Commencement
	(1) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force on 31st July 2006—
	(a) section 1 to 4,
	(b) Part 2 in so far as it relates to sections 1 to 4,
	(c) sections 11 to 14 in so far as they relate to sections 1 to 4,
	(d) Schedule 1, and
	(e) Schedule 2 and 3, except in so far as they change the law in relation to an activity to which section 5 applies.
	(2) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force at the end of the period of three months beginning with the date on which it is passed—
	(a) section 5,
	(b) Part 2 in so far as it relates to section 5,
	(c) sections 11 to 13 in so far as they relate to section 5, and
	(d) Schedules 2 and 3 in so far as they change the law in relation to an activity to which section 5 applies."

Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have covered much of the ground relating to this matter. The suggested amendment would defer commencement of the ban on hunting with dogs but not the ban on hare coursing until 31 July 2006. The amendment therefore relates to the banning Bill rather than to the Bill on which we have just passed the amendment with the year 2007. This is the Commons position in terms of the timing of the banning Bill.
	I think we know where we are. We have just completed the proceedings on a Bill which your Lordships are sending back to the Commons for reconsideration, but it is also the second insistence on the Lords' position. We therefore know that it is likely that the Commons will not accept that Bill and that the Parliament Act will come into play. That would mean that the date of commencement of a banning Bill would be in February next year.
	The Commons propose that there should be a delay in the implementation of the Bill until July 2006. It has a number of merits. First, it will allow some degree of adjustment. Secondly, it will allow the welfare and other arrangements to be made. Thirdly, it will allow the democratic will of the people to be declared when it is quite clear that an alternative government would be committed to repealing this likely Bill.
	For those reasons, I think that the House should support the suggested amendment, recognising that it is a contingency arrangement and that the Bill that goes back for now to the Commons has a 2007 commencement date. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons suggested amendment.—(Lord Whitty.)

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, will the Minister explain to noble Lords who are not so well versed in these matters the difference between a "suggested amendment" and an amendment?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have been through the Bill and completed the amendments to it. The suggested amendment by the Commons relates to a Bill structured in the form in which it came to this House—namely, in the form of a ban. Noble Lords chose not to deal with the Bill in the form of a ban, even by the increase in the number of exemptions, which was a possibility. So we are faced with the possibility of the Commons insisting on a Bill with a ban and of the Parliament Act being implemented—in that sense, it is a contingency amendment. The amendment relates to that Bill rather than the one that we are sending back to the Commons.
	In earlier debates I said that it would have been a better date for our registration Bill also but we have taken a decision on that. Having dealt with the Bill itself, we are now dealing with the possibility of the banning Bill coming into effect, if we do not agree this Motion, in only three months' time. The choice before the House is whether it wants hunting in the form that it has tried to defend to finish in three months' time or in July 2006.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, the Minister has made what he regards as a very simple statement. Have the Government taken legal advice on human rights, the Parliament Act and compensation aspects of an 18-month delay, which he has asked us to accept? The noble Lord has conducted himself extremely well during this Bill; I appreciate that very much. However, the House would like to know what has been the legal advice in the circumstances? Is there a difference between three months and 18 months in respect of the three issues that I have raised?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have debated previously the issue of human rights in relation particularly to compensation. It is our judgment that the commencement date makes no difference to that advice. The validity of the Parliament Act is not a matter that relates to this Bill, therefore I shall not comment on it. If necessary, it will be decided in the courts.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, in Committee I raised an issue to which I have not had a reply. Section 2(3) of the Parliament Act 1911 implies that a Bill must have completed all stages in this House, or have been positively rejected. It would be very unwise for the noble Lord's party to start a system whereby a Bill can "time out" in this House. When they are in Opposition, if this procedure becomes normal, they will find it very difficult to oppose. The Parliament Act should not be used in this case.

Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly against my noble friend's Motion. The reasons for the delay that he proposes are the political expediency of avoiding the issue in the general election and the hope of avoiding the human rights implications. The reasons for the longer delay, which has been agreed by this House, were set out by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I, too, set them out when moving a similar amendment at the previous stage. Basically, they were reasons of animal welfare, which ought to be the primary consideration of this House, rather than political expediency. Therefore, I oppose the Motion.

On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
	*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 119; Not-Contents, 155.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Civil Contingencies Bill

Bill returned from the Commons with certain amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement; with certain other amendments disagreed to but with amendments proposed in lieu thereof; and with the remaining amendments agreed to; the Commons amendments and reasons were ordered to be printed.

Housing Bill

Bill returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
	House adjourned at nine o'clock.